Raid at hot dog joint preceded Kmart bust

I also find it very interesting that parents are now questioning the police when many had obviously not been questioning their teens over the past few months to find out where their child was and what he or she was doing. Is this belated reaction to the arrests really just guilt because the parents were in denial about what had been going on? Would these parents rather wait until their child died or killed someone else in a street-racing accident?

My sentiments exactly about the attitudes of some of the parents.

The cops made some mistakes if they arrested legitimate Sonic customers who were not part of the crowd (but there is no evidence they did), but I see no reason to drop any charges against the others arrested in light of what this neighbor says.

It is rather amazing how you see only what you want to see, and flatly deny the existence of anything which contradicts that.

I recall the article that said cops handed out cards to all patrons who were there legitimately. If anyone was arrested at Sonic, it would be because the cops saw that they were not legitimate customers. And again, without knowing the layout of the parking lot, its senseless to argue about anything that happened at Sonic.

"Monica Coello, 36, was finishing a meal in the parking lot with her brother, sister, sister-in-law and 2-year-old niece when she was arrested. "

". One of the kids parents obviously wasn't there. The mother of them all was at her home. This all sounds strange."

The 2 year old is Monicas niece. Monicas brother is the childs father and Monicas sister-in-law is the childs mother. Monica is 36 and her brother and sister would presumably be of a similar age which is certainly old enough to be out without their mother.

The only thing strange is that a 2 year old would be up that late, but there are circumstances that could provide a reasonable explaination for that as well. Also for your information, police cannot arrest a 2 year old, and they also cannot arrest her mother because to do so would leave the child unattended. Hope this clears up your confusion.

"I'm also happy the cars got towed. I've seen and heard these cars weekend after weekend, and I hope the towing fee on top of any arrest fine will hit these teens and their parents in their pocketbooks. Often (and sadly) it is only after money becomes involved that people sit up and take note. "

Well the way the police handled this it will be the Houston tax payer who takes the hit in the pocket book. Thx for the ping niki.

Sorry, I missed that. I didn't make that connection.

The only thing strange is that a 2 year old would be up that late, but there are circumstances that could provide a reasonable explaination for that as well.

Possibly so.

Also for your information, police cannot arrest a 2 year old, and they also cannot arrest her mother because to do so would leave the child unattended. Hope this clears up your confusion

Well, they wont arrest a two-year old, but the child will be taken into custody. Try robbing a store with a young child in your custody, and tell the cops you can't be arrested because a child is with you. If you are breaking the law, you will be arrested. The kid will end up at Child Welfare or, if the cops are nice, they will let a responsible relative take custody. Its odd here that the cops insisted that everyone there was breaking the law, but let the sister-in-law go. They probably didn't have time to deal with the kid.

I'm finally starting to see the impeccable logic of libertarianism. Lest one innocent soul suffer unlawful infringement of his unalienable rights by government, government and law enforcement must be eliminated. Free, free, free at last!

LOL...as opposed to the fine nuance you bring to this discussion?

The article didn't say that. "I recall the article that said cops handed out cards to all patrons who were there legitimately." Rather that is what the police claimed they did.

I'm not a Texas lawyer (California instead), but its law on trespass as reported by Texans on the Freep sounds similar to California law. The police can't make custodial arrests of people for trespass on private property in the absence of some form of authorization from the property owner. Posting a No Trespassing sign is generally sufficient, but often the property owners ask the police to act.

Nowhere has it been reported, that I've seen, that the property owners/store personnel asked the police to arrest trespassers or that no trespassing signs were posted (there wouldn't be those in parking lots - stores want customers to come in). Furthermore one of the news stories mentioned, and I saw in a TV clip, that the Houston PD chief wanted to know why the hell people were being arrested instead of cited.

All this together tells me that arresting ANYONE for trespass in these incidents is a per se violation of at least official police procedure, and most likely flat out illegal.

If anyone was arrested at Sonic, it would be because the cops saw that they were not legitimate customers.

Since some of the people who were arrested had receipts showing that they were engaged in commerce with Sonic at the time of the arrest, then the cops did NOT see correctly. Maybe your supercops have ESP.

"Its odd here that the cops insisted that everyone there was breaking the law, but let the sister-in-law go. "

Kinda makes the point that even the police knew that what they were doing was wrong. Someone with an ounce of common since realized that arresting the childs mother would not only be wrong but probably criminal and decided he didn't want to go to prision.

I agree that they should have been cited. I think it still remains to be seen if someone from K-Mart had ever complained, though.

In the case of "trespass" after dark though, according to the laws you know, would it be ok for the cops to detain the kids, then call the property owner(or manager on duty) and ask if he/she would like to have the children arrested fro trespassing? Is it not customary for police, when observing suspicious behavior after dark, to determine what's going on? Wouldn't this entail contacting the property owner to ask if permission had been given to occupy the prperty, and if not, should the persons be arrested?

One more question? If K-Mart wasn't open 24 hours, and there was no restaurant next door, would this be different in your opinion?

That's funny. I recall posting a picture on that thread of three women who were arrested at Sonic showing a receipt for food they had purchased at 12:35 a.m.

There was an article posted yesterday where the cops claimed that plain-clothes officers handed out "cards" to legitimate customers. I don't know if thats true or not. Maybe they saw the girls in the picture drive over from the crowd in the K-Mart parking lot.

The problem is this: We are talking about a cowd of over 400 that was of a specific age group. Yes, some, or many at some point that nite, patronized Sonic. The girls in the picture were obviously within the age group of the crowd. Given that this is a known hang out for kids this age, it is HIGHLY unlikely that these girls were not there as part of the crowd.

Im not defending the cops for arresting anyone. They shouldn't have done that really, they should have been cited first. I am simply defending the right of the police to disperse the crowd and protect neighbors and passersby from the nuisance and danger that the actions of the crowd present - A notion/right that many posters seem to deny.

Can we agree that per neighbors reports, these kids were a nuisance, and posed a danger by street racing, and that law enforcement has a right to disperse the crowd(although arresting them was the wrong thing)?

Since some of the people who were arrested had receipts showing that they were engaged in commerce with Sonic at the time of the arrest, then the cops did NOT see correctly.

Although this is silly to continue this since I'm not defending the cops for arresting anyone, I'll state this again. I feel that it is highly unlikely, given that this was a known hang out for teens, that anyone in the age group of the crowd was not part of the crowd that had apparently been doing this for ten months.

We can agree that the neighbors believed they were a nuisance, and if I lived next door to that parking lot I know that I would certainly feel that way. But I don't agree that they were an illegal nuisance because they weren't doing anything illegal under Texas law.

They were not street racing in that parking lot. The allegation is that some of those same kids were probably meeting there and going someplace else to race. I don't know if that's true or not, but let's assume it's true. So what? It's the someplace else where street racing was happening.

The police do not have a right to disperse a crowd on private property unless that crowd is engaged in illegal behavior or activities. As I have tried to explain to you several times, the police cannot arrest, or even cite, someone for trespass on a parking lot until the property owner has asked the people to leave and the people refuse. You refuse to accept that as an answer because you believe the police ought to have that right.

But they don't. The law doesn't give them that right.

The police do not have a right to disperse a crowd on private property unless that crowd is engaged in illegal behavior or activities.

And this is where "common sense" replaces "just following orders". A cop sees 400+ people, some of which appear to be younger than 18, thus breaking curfew(crime). Simply at this point, the police would have every right to approach the crowd, and make sure those who look under 18 aren't. Secondly, using common sense, police know(given the complaints fron neighbors) that a crowd of 400+ congregated on private property that they do not own, after dark, were not invited. The neighbors complaint said the people raced in the lot, and up and down the main street that the K-Mart fronted on. Using common sense, everyone, including dumb cops, know the crowd a)was not suposed to be there and b)was congregating for the purpose of committing other, unlawful acts. This is more than enough LEGAL reason to disperse the crowd.

But I don't agree that they were an illegal nuisance because they weren't doing anything illegal under Texas law.

Um, most counties and municipalities have laws against "nuisances" such as noise after dark. I bet if we looked at a full list of State, city and county laws, we could find several that were being violated.

Enforcing curfew is fine against the juveniles as long as they're in a public place, which parking lots are. It doesn't matter what the property owner says. Curfew laws protect the public. Trespass laws protect property owners, not the public, and violations can be waived by the property owner. That's why the police must check with the property owner first.

Your second question depends on what signs were posted in the KMart parking lot. Many California shopping centers have parking lot signs prohibiting loitering after business hours, and also have pre-existing agreements with the police to enforce the trepass laws when the centers are closed.

Even so, almost all California trespass offense prosecutions are initiated by citation rather than arrest. Arrests generally follow failure to disperse when ordered, and then the charge is failure to obey a lawful police order rather than trespass. Trespass charges, when they're filed, are added later after the police check with the property owner.

The angry reaction of Houston's police chief indicates it is the same way there. Captain Vierra not merely screwed up by ordering trespass arrests instead of citations, but he may have exposed himself to criminal charges.

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.