Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Taxpayers could pay $165,000 to clear records in K-Mart raid
ABC affiliate, Houston ^ | 12/31/2002 | The Associated Press

Posted on 12/31/2002 2:57:48 PM PST by EBUCK

Taxpayers could pay $165,000 to clear records in K-Mart raid

Hundreds of people were arrested in August for trespassing on private property. By The Associated Press (12/31/02- Houston) — City council members are considering hiring a law firm to help clear the records of hundreds of people arrested at Kmart and other businesses over the summer, a move that could stick taxpayers with a bill of as much as $165,000. The council was scheduled Tuesday to consider whether to hire Winstead, Sechrest & Minick to help expunge the arrests from the records of nearly 300 people arrested during an ill-fated August sting on drag racing.

Though charges have been dropped, the arrests remain on their police records.

Amateur Houston songwriters riding wave of Yao Ming song Storms caused some damage in Montgomery County Taxpayers could pay $165,000 to clear records in K-Mart raid Houston police seek man who disarmed an officer during struggle Former HISD teacher charged with sexual assault Was driver to blame for Saturday's massive tollway pileup? Police warn against ringing in New Year with gunfire Eight Houston-area residents survive Belize plane crash More recent stories The city is considering using private attorneys because the city's legal department is already representing Houston in several lawsuits stemming from the arrests.

"We are trying to rectify a wrong," said Robert Cambrice, a senior assistant city attorney. "We are trying to help out people who are trying to get into school or apply for jobs and are denied that opportunity because they have an arrest record."

Cambrice said that if the contract is approved those arrested will be notified of the service by mail. Records would be expunged at a cost to the city of $484 each.

But Randall Kallinen, an attorney representing some of those arrested, said he would advise his clients not to accept the offer because they need proof of their arrests to pursue wrongful arrest lawsuits against the city.

"This is nothing but damage control which they (city officials) are going to try and use in later court cases," Kallinen said. "(Arrest records) are evidence of their own wrongdoing. They are trying to reduce future claims."

The city faces several lawsuits filed on behalf of some 60 people arrested in the raids. The lawsuits accuse the city and two police officers of false arrest, false imprisonment and civil-rights violations. Two lawsuits seek unspecified damages while others seek millions of dollars in damages.

Capt. Mark Aguirre directed the sweeps of parking lots that led to the arrests outside a Kmart, a Sonic Drive-In, and a James Coney Island on the weekend of Aug. 17.

Aguirre planned the raid to crack down on drag racers. But when police found no evidence of drag racing, they swept through the parking lots and arrested those gathered there anyway.

Many of those arrested were customers of the businesses, but were charged with trespassing and curfew violations.

The arrests fueled a public uproar, with council members and Police Chief C.O. Bradford criticizing the arrests as heavy-handed.

The Police Department launched its largest-ever internal affairs investigation, and a Harris County grand jury on Dec. 6 indicted Aguirre and Sgt. Ken Wenzel on Dec. 6 on five counts each of official oppression.

(Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved)


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: falsearrest; taxrape
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: Houmatt
Who you should be asking is the HPD, or Christine McDonald, since she knew enough about the prior complaints to mention it in her op-ed piece in the Comical.

The Houston Chronicle has quoted former Chief Bradford that 273 people were arrested for criminal trespass and elsewhere stated that 42 of those were juveniles.

One of the first articles published said that the juveniles were also cited for curfew violations, but I wasn't able to dig that up in a quick search.

61 posted on 01/02/2003 4:01:26 PM PST by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
The answer is NONE, and you know it. Sheesh.

No, I don't know, and I can't without asking the aforementioned parties. You don't know either. So stop pretending.

62 posted on 01/02/2003 4:09:51 PM PST by Houmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
...has quoted former Chief Bradford...

But we all know that suspended Chief Bradford lies when it suits him. Unless some of these false arrest suits go to trial I doubt that we will ever hear the full story of how this went down. Don't forget that there was a previous smaller scale version of this same thing a week or so before at another location. Just didn't get the publicity because of the smaller scale.

63 posted on 01/02/2003 4:10:35 PM PST by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Get real. That is so stupid. I don't know for a fact that all 200 weren't charged with possession of nuclear weapon, either, because I've never asked.

You prove that they were charged with the things you allege occurred, or give it up. The burden of proof is on YOU.

64 posted on 01/02/2003 4:14:21 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I think that you are wasting your time. You're trying to conduct a logical argument with someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject according to his admissions. He apparently never saw a news account of the arrests and never saw any interviews of any parties involved. He knows, at least according to his account, that at some time in the past some people violated the law. Therefore everyone in sight should be arrested. When someone laments the empty parking lot at Wal-Mart as part of his argument don't you wonder about his objectivity?
65 posted on 01/02/2003 4:18:12 PM PST by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul; Houmatt
I know I'm wasting my time. I've had many "discussions" with him on this matter going back to the days of the arrests.

My only goal is to ensure that nobody new to the discussions is led to believe that Houmatt's position is remotely reasonable, because it's not. It's absurd and an embarrassment to this forum.

66 posted on 01/02/2003 4:24:12 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
But we all know that suspended Chief Bradford lies when it suits him.

Bradford was actually amending previous police reports that 278 people were arrested for criminal trespass. Hopefully, not everyone at the police department is lying.

Unless some of these false arrest suits go to trial I doubt that we will ever hear the full story of how this went down.

Like you, I doubt that few, if any of the false arrest suits will go to trial. But, my rationale is different: I expect the city to settle out of court to avoid the risk of a huge damage award by a jury.

Don't forget that there was a previous smaller scale version of this same thing a week or so before at another location. Just didn't get the publicity because of the smaller scale.

25 people were arrested for criminal trespass at the James Coney Island the night before. The owner/operator of the business has stated that he planned to file a complaint with the Houston Police.

67 posted on 01/02/2003 4:28:20 PM PST by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Get real. That is so stupid.

How stupid is it? Since I was originally talking about the behavior of people in the K-Mart parking lot that spurred complaints months before the raid took place (and I am STILL talking about that), just exactly how can you know what citations were handed out back then without asking the aforementioned parties, unless you happen to be omniscient?

68 posted on 01/02/2003 4:51:34 PM PST by Houmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
The question was about what happened that night. Your excuse now that you were talking about something that may have happened previously is convenient, but irrelevant.

Try again.

69 posted on 01/02/2003 4:57:36 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but the raid was performed because of past complaints. So you can bet your sweet patootie it is relevant.
70 posted on 01/02/2003 5:02:56 PM PST by Houmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
My only goal is to ensure that nobody new to the discussions is led to believe that Houmatt's position is remotely reasonable, because it's not. It's absurd and an embarrassment to this forum.

Oh, really? How about explaining that? I am curious.

71 posted on 01/02/2003 5:05:01 PM PST by Houmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
It will come as a shock to you that it is not permissible to arrest a crowd because of complaints about past crowds.

There's a little detail about arresting the right people that you don't care about, and there's a little detail about the fact that no crime was actually being committed that you don't care about.

That is an embarrassment to this forum, but I don't ever expect you to recognize that.

72 posted on 01/02/2003 5:13:17 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
Sorry to have to be the one to break this to you, but the raid was performed because of past complaints. So you can bet your sweet patootie it is relevant.

If anyone had actually been arrested for offenses that instigated the past complaints, you might have a point.

But, no one was arrested for those offenses. Instead, everyone were arrested for an offense that was unsubstantiated. As a result, even those that may actually have been committing another offense walked away. And now the city is even offering to foot the bill for expunging those arrests.

Police cannot arrest someone for an offense that wasn't committed today because one may have been committed in the past. So no, the past isn't relevant in this case.

73 posted on 01/02/2003 5:40:12 PM PST by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: FreePaul
Yes..too bad for the police that there is the potential for a class action suit here. That gives people far more power in fighting this corruption. Do you get the feeling that Houmatt is one of the police officers involved in this raid? He/she did say that he lives in the neighborhood, and there mind is quite warped.
74 posted on 01/02/2003 6:32:35 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Revel
Maybe a cousin or brother of one of the cops. The cops themselves have surely been told to keep their lips zipped.
75 posted on 01/02/2003 11:42:15 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
The cops themselves have surely been told to keep their lips zipped.

Standing department policy, actually.

A few police officers made anonymous statements to the press shortly after this happened, and a few Freepers reported call-in's to local talk radio shows. None of it was flattering.

Follow some of the links at the beginning of this thread and you'll find the reports.

76 posted on 01/03/2003 4:50:40 AM PST by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson