Posted: 2/5/2012 4:16:48 AM EDT
|
Alright, we got an incident and im looking for an outside opinion. we have a guy whos been calling dispatch (non 911) wanting to speak to a female officer about him wanting to kill himself. been going off and on for a few months. he'll say hes at such and such gas station, but hes never there. 90% of the time its the same female officer on duty. well we finally get him the other night. she now is charging him with the following charge.but there was NO EXCHANGE OF BODILY FLUID! the underlined portion is her charging language.... am i the only one who disagrees?
22.11 HARASSMENT BY PERSONS IN CERTAIN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; HARASSMENT OF PUBLIC SERVANT (a)Â Â A person commits an offense if, with the intent to assault, harass, or alarm, the person: (1)Â Â while imprisoned or confined in a correctional or detention facility, causes another person to contact the blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid, saliva, urine, or feces of the actor, any other person, or an animal; or (2)Â Â causes another person the actor knows to be a public servant to contact the blood, seminal fluid, vaginal fluid, saliva, urine, or feces of the actor, any other person, or an animal while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of the public servant's official power or performance of an official duty. (b)Â Â An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree. (c)Â Â If conduct constituting an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under another section of this code, the actor may be prosecuted under either section. (d)Â Â In this section, "correctional or detention facility" means: (1)Â Â a secure correctional facility; or (2)Â Â a "secure correctional facility" or a "secure detention facility" as defined by Section 51.02, Family Code, operated by or under contract with a juvenile board or the Texas Youth Commission or any other facility operated by or under contract with that commission. (e)Â Â For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), the actor is presumed to have known the person was a public servant if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant. Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 335, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 878, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1006, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 543, Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2005. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 543, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005. |
|
False Alarm or Report would have been my prefered charge in that case, given the information provided.
MPD165 Sec. 42.06. FALSE ALARM OR REPORT. (a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly initiates, communicates or circulates a report of a present, past, or future bombing, fire, offense, or other emergency that he knows is false or baseless and that would ordinarily:(1) cause action by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;(2) place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, or aircraft, automobile, or other mode of conveyance.(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the false report is of an emergency involving a public primary or secondary school, public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service, in which event the offense is a state jail felony. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1114, ch. 530, Sec. 4, eff. Aug. 27, 1979; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Edited to include statute. |
|
I showed up and she had him cuffed and I was like what for ad she said she was still deciding and was gonna go with abusive 911. I said he didn't call 911. she said well he called dispatch which are 911 operators. I said no he has to call 9-1-1. so I suggested false alarm report and asked we certain questions to get her to answer in a way where she finally caught what I was throwing. so he was booked on false report. I then find out she's going after an indictment for 22.11. I went round and bout with her about it doesn't fit and she said A.d.a says they'll take it. at that point I walked away. some people you just can't talk to. and this guys obsession is supposedly based on that he was Ed'd by her over a year ago. according to her that is. I've spoken with the dude and he's got mommy issues which is why I think he wants a female officer. but now she's also gonna try stalking cause when He got
out of jail he drove by the restaraunt she was eating at on duty..... |
|
Quoted:
I would like to know how she wrote that up to make it even come close to meeting the elements of the offense she charged him with. MPD165 She sounds like a piece of work. Frankly i dont think that charge will make it past the probable cause hearing by a judge before setting his bail. Have you heard back to see if the judge tossed the charge yet? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would like to know how she wrote that up to make it even come close to meeting the elements of the offense she charged him with. MPD165 She sounds like a piece of work. Frankly i dont think that charge will make it past the probable cause hearing by a judge before setting his bail. Have you heard back to see if the judge tossed the charge yet? It shouldn't. It should have never been approved by a supervisor. Our DA's intake attorney would have sent that back with a nastygram attached to it. MPD165 |
| well first, we don't go to court. we just don't. everything here (county and district) ends is pleas and dismissals. we never have trials. the only testifying an officer in this county will do is muni court, ALR, and grand jury. so as far as officers being called on their shit, just ain't gonna happen. and it's been that way for a LONG time so supervisors aren't having to justify why theyve let shit slide cause they aren't being called out either. our booking procedure is to fill out intake with very very very brief narrative. then book. in the morning some jp who is pissed off cause he has to be there at 8 and that's not why he became a judge, he got elected cause he's retired and wants a check and title. he shows up and hands out random pr to $1500 bonds and goes home. then case get sent to prosecutor and we hear nothing ever again. |
|
I mean we don't even have uumv. if its not a theft it's a civil matter. if you have EVER had permission, access, or even ability to use vehicle then you always do until that consent is retracted. so a simple hey here's my keys go move my car provides unequivocal consent until expressly retracted. harassment, not a chance. cause victim has options to
change number or block the caller etc. |