This is ridiculous. Police arrests about 500 kids in Kmart parking lot on Westheimer.

I just didn't see the question. I miss posts from time to time.

Never said there was a 24 hour expiration, but if these kids are told to leave and then leave, coming back is not a violation. Unless they were told they could not come back, they aren't in violation when they come back at a later time.

Since they were apparently never told that entry itself was forbidden. It would fall under the "received notice to depart but failed to do so". If they received notice to depart and did so, they aren't in violation when they come back.

If they were told that entry was always forbidden, then that could be a different issue, though it would be open to interpretation. But has KMart told these kids that entry was forbidden to them? Or were they given notice to depart at previous time, which they complied with. And then came back at a different time. At which point, they would be required to be given notice to depart once again.

It's two different areas of the same statute. If every one of those kids who was arrested was previously told that they could never come back, then it is likely that would fall under the notice that entry was forbidden to them. If they were just told to depart and did depart, they would have to be asked to depart again at the later time.

 

Not true. § 30.05. Criminal Trespass

(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on property, including an aircraft, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:

(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

1 OR 2 constitutes trespass. The police came before and said 'go away. do not come back here to congregate.' There is no expiration on that warning. The next time they congregate there they are trespassing.

Interesting thought. So if I'm at a no nukes rally (yeah yeah, i know. i could be there heckling, right?) on private property. I go around the bend to use the restroom. While I'm gone the police say over a bullhorn 'go home. you are not allowed here on this private property. vacate now.' I come back and the police arrest me. Illegal? I doubt it.

 

Well, that would be the question as to whether the "never come back" warning would be enough of a warning (and I made reference to that if they were told to never come back, that would probably be sufficient warning. I know it's a pain to read everything I post, but I did make mention of that very possibility before. So when you accuse me of spreading an untruth, please make the effort to read the whole thing and realize that I've said exactly what you're saying I didn't). Did the police ever say that the kids could never come back? (And I don't believe that asking them not to congregate would work. It would have to be that they were forbidden from any entry even if they were alone). And that would only apply to those who were told not to come back. It wouldn't apply to someone who wasn't there when the warning was given.

But yeah, if they were told they could never come back, then that would probably be sufficient warning even in the future....to the people who were actually told that. But if they were just told to depart before (and not told that future entry was forbidden), they weren't trespassing at the later date.

Probably is, though, under the letter of the law. You weren't there when the request was made. If you could prove that you weren't there when the request was made, you'd likely beat the charge.

 

You seem to be an expert at speculation, so do me a favor and speculate as to any situation in which you could possibly prove the kids who'd been warned on other days were the ones arrested. Does K-Mart videotape their parking lot? Do they videotape the warnings? Your argument presumes that it's the same 500 kids there every night. I doubt it can be proven.

It wasn't an offer, so you don't have the option of accepting. I lived in NYC for four years, so I have insight into what it's like to live there. I wasn't there for 9/11. arkoe's been to that lot, so he has insight as to some things that happen there. He wasn't there that night. My point here was that arkoe was responding to past incidents and was ignoring the evidence re: the current one. Want proof? He asked if the ice cream eating kids were watching a race. There wasn't one. His post was less insightful than the ones which have responded to the news accounts. Does he have some insight into that lot? Yes. Was his post "damn insightful" as RocketRiver said? No.

I don't know, man. Maybe I'm just dense. Maybe my buddies on the right, MadMax and Refman, are just dense too. And maybe the Chronicle reporters and editorial staff is too. Maybe everyone but you is. The cops said something to the effect of just being glad Aguirre didn't fire shots into the crowd. They didn't call it "utterly, utterly senseless" because of paper work. Give me a break. Some of these guys were probably good cops who didn't want to arrest innocent people. But maybe they're dense too.

Here's more from that notoriously dense cop-hating Thom Marshall. I mean, we all know HE'S a communist, right?

Policing the police after Kmart raid
By THOM MARSHALL
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle
Attention, Kmart shoppers. You are under arrest.

Houston cops planned for weeks to swoop down on a parking lot and nab a bunch of drag racers but couldn't find any when they got there. So, what the heck, they just rounded up everyone in the parking lot outside a 24-hour Kmart and a Sonic Drive-In and charged the whole bunch with trespassing. No joke.

Police Chief C.O. Bradford has promised us an investigation of this amazing weekend bust. But if HPD's self-examination is the sole probe, it won't be nearly enough.

At times like this we need some way to police the police. Otherwise, you know what will happen: HPD will treat this contemptible abuse of power as a single, isolated incident. If an investigation actually finds that citizens were wrongfully arrested, authorities then will focus on damage control and try to put the blame on one or two individuals.

The most obvious scapegoat at this point is Mark Aguirre, the police captain in charge. Bradford recently reprimanded Aguirre for using foul and threatening language to subordinates, but an arbitrator overturned the reprimand. This Kmart raid presents Bradford with another opportunity to come down on Aguirre.


Simple scapegoat won't do
But we can't settle for a typical smokescreen-and-scapegoat kind of investigation. Too many serious issues and nagging questions have been laid bare by this absurdity.

For one example: Why weren't some oversight measures in place that could have prevented the debacle, or could have at least called a halt to it in the early stages?

Ronald J. Beylott, the city's chief prosecutor of municipal courts, said he had no notification about the raid on the parking lot, although it had been weeks in the planning. He was at a loss to explain why he had not been advised.

Beylott said that while no intake screening process is in place to review the routine misdemeanor arrests made by police officers, preparations for large-scale police operations in the past have included notifying the municipal courts in order to facilitate the processing of unusually large numbers of arrests.

For another example: What about the towing charges? People whose cars got towed in the weekend raid have paid or will pay well over $100 each to get them returned.

HPD's head PR guy, Robert Hurst, said Tuesday that police have no idea how many cars got towed from the parking lot. He said that will be part of the "internal inquiry." He said police also have no idea how much time might be required to complete their "internal inquiry."

But when officials finally determine and admit the arrests were unjustified, all costs of reclaiming the towed vehicles should quickly be refunded. Not by taxpayers, however. Refunds should come from the person responsible for the towing -- perhaps the ranking cop in charge.

The practice of towing cars cries out for a thorough examination. Authorities too often allow towing by independent companies to serve as an unofficial punitive measure, and it is a penalty without sufficient or effective avenues for appeal by vehicle owners.


Questioning criminal justice
Yet another example: What about the people who pleaded guilty to the charges in order to get out of jail quicker?

Our criminal justice system makes it much more time consuming and difficult and expensive and risky for innocent people to stand up for their rights. This is another issue that needs to be put under a magnifying glass.

All arrest and conviction records and pleas resulting from the weekend raid should be dismissed, expunged, erased and eradicated without requiring the people arrested to file any documents or spend any more time or money to get it done.

And for the last example we have space for today: Is a major police raid like this the best way to deal with problems such as drag racing and late-night congregating on business parking lots?

Hurst said more than 50 cops were involved. Obviously, the money and manpower would have been better invested in preventive methods such as beefing up patrols in the problem areas.

 

Great article, batman! Some great points there...

and addition to guys like me being dense...I guess the cops who said afterward that the whole thing was way out of control are dense as well...the cops who were actually there...

i find the comments of the municipal prosecutor to be most interesting...if this was something they had planned but kept hidden from the prosecutor before it happened that's trouble.

 

Nothing new. This is the same as police coming into a house and giving a bunch of kids curfew violations.

 

You didn't say what I said, mrpaige. I said 'don't come back and congregate here.' You said 'don't EVER come back.' I said your statement that the warning would only last until they left was untrue, depending on what was said (as in the sentences above). And I was typing that last post as you answered Mango, so sorry you had to make the same answers twice.

Hmmm, what about a NO FISHING sign? That is not a restriction that says NO ENTRY, but you might be charged with trespassing if you ignored the sign with your fishing pole, right?

 

Hadn't heard that one.

 

Well, a judge can ask each kid under oath, right. And some have already admitted guilt, right?

Since NONE of the article give any historical context for this event, arkoe certainly provided a narrative voice that was lacking in the discussion. Many questions were asked that could not be answered by the articles. Want proof? Here's a few to illustrate:

Q: Why would the police arrest people at the Sonic?
A: Because it is on the road with a stoplight that they use for racing.

Q: Is there drinking at these congregations?
A: Yes.

Q: Had the police come and run the kids off before?
A: Yes.

Actually one of the articles SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED paperwork. And as your wonderful article below points out, the HPD will scapegoat Aguirre because of the public controversy.

Yes, let's take a look at his brilliant analysis...

Since AT LEAST FORTY + of the arrests were completely legal, and in compliance with the law, WHY WOULD THOSE BE DISMISSED? Oh yeah, because controversy sells copy.

And I'm not labeling you as dense because you think the police overreacted. I can understand that, and have said the same myself multiple times. You keep saying 'the cops just showed up, man, and like busted 'em for no reason.' They had a reason. These kids are a problem. Police have been called before. Drag racing is illegal. These kids congregate for that. Drinking is illegal for those underage, and there was some of that. Curfew is the law, and there were more than FORTY of those. So did they handle it badly? Yes. Did they show up out of the freaking blue? No. Max, I didn't say anything about you, so I'm not sure why you are joining in.

 

Hayes -- you are aware of the 5th amendment right?? those kids don't have to make any statement that will incriminate themselves...if the state can't prove it without their own admissions, then the state can't prove it at all.

 

I just wasn't being clear enough even though I thought I was. Though I say those two statements are the same thing. My reading of the law says that the trespass occurs when the person who was given notice to not enter entered. I don't know how you can say "Yes, you may enter unless we decide that too many other people have also entered at the same time and you are therefore congregating and therefore trespassing". You either tell them that entry is forbidden or you don't. Telling them they can come back isn't saying that entry is forbidden. I don't know how you can tell them that entry is forbidden in cases where other people also choose to enter.

If that makes any sense.

You have to tell them entry is forbidden. I say that's the same as saying they can't come back and congregate. So I say I did say what you said. The "you can't come back" is the part that makes it the warning. That's where the person was told that entry is forbidden. If they choose to not enforce it until there is a congregation, that's a different issue. But technically, the person would be trespassing every time they came on to the property even if they were shopping.

Only if you were fishing. If you were sitting on that bank of the pond, you wouldn't be violating the sign even if you happened to have a fishing pole on your person (though not in the water.. because at that point, you're fishing... and if you were leaving and there was evidence that you did fish, perhaps that would qualify). Though I think that could be open to interpretation.

I mean, if you take this example to a logical extreme, if I put up a sign that says "No Hopping on Your Left Foot", can you be charged with criminal trespass if you happen to hop?

Of course, there may be different things that govern fishing rules and the like anyway. Not really so much familiar with it and am not really willing to state equivically what a "No Fishing" sign would or wouldn't mean in terms of criminal trespass charges.

 

Yes, they could take the fifth. Or their parents could rap them on their ears and tell them to be truthful. Although I'm not sure if the fifth extends to minors.

 

Yep. Sorry for the confusion.

My point is that you COULD have a sign that meets the Code for criminal trespass, that qualifies WHEN you could enter, right? With the fishing example, you could enter if you were NOT fishing. It could say NO ENTRY AFTER MIDNIGHT and that would meet your interp, right? So if the warning, which does NOT have to be written, is 'don't come to this parking lot and socialize and hang out -- only come if you have business in KMart' then that would meet the Code.

 

The more I think about it, though, I'm not entirely sure about my answer, though. Though I would think that it would have to be more specific than "don't come here and congregate" as that's too vague (what constitutes a congregation, etc.), I suppose that it might meet the test if specific conditions were attached to the ban against entry.

For example, if I was told that I couldn't enter on Friday or Saturday between 6pm and 3am, perhaps that would qualify as a warning and not mean that I could never come back (I just couldn't enter on Friday and Saturday between 6pm and 3am). That would seem to go along with a sign that said "No Entry between Midnight and 6am" or something like that.

It would have to be more specific than "don't congregate here", though.

Of course, I still say that if you were told "don't come back here", that would qualify as your warning for any time you entered even if the store didn't enforce it until you were hanging out in the parking lot. Others might not agree with that wide a latitude in such a warning, though.

I guess my point is, though, that conditions could be attached when entry would be forbidden, though it would have to be relatively specific.

 

Yep. As you were writing this, I was writing how after more thought, I think I do agree. Though the specificity is an issue.

 

To the last bbs member still defending this action:

Max already got half of my response to your first 'point.' And to quote you, you must be a lousy lawyer if you think that's going to happen. Thom Marshall got the second half of my response. Some of those kids wanted to get out of jail as quickly as possible (I don't blame them) and pleaded guilty. Some other ones didn't have bond money.

Those forty curfew violators might be let off because the judge has discretion here and will likely find their arrests to be out of proportion to their crime and because everyone in Houston but you thinks HPD ****ed up big time here.

I'm willing to concede that arkoe posted useful information. I should have used different words to express my feeling that the facts he left out left his post seeming biased by ignorance to the news account. But I was wrong to say his post wasn't insightful. It feels good to admit you were wrong. You should try it.

My "wonderful article," as you called it (who ARE you anyway?) was making the point that it would not be enough to scapegoat Aguirre. And I wasn't disputing the fact that officers don't like paperwork. I was disputing your LUDICROUS position that that was why they called the arrests "senseless." I'm actually willing to give these officers the benefit of the doubt. In your desperate, flailing attempt to justify the unjustifiable, you have become their enemy here.

I'm trying to believe that you're just being stubborn. The cops don't want your help and neither do K-Mart or the neighbors. Your arguments do not aid their cause -- they hinder it.

(The above paragraph edited to remove name calling. The name I used was "bozo." I regretted it and returned to edit.)

 

Hayes, you edited your post after I posted in response. My reply to your edit: I haven't put words in your mouth, don't put them in mine. I've never said that nothing illegal ever happened in that parking lot. I said from the beginning that the response was overblown and that that didn't surprise me. I started posting in this thread in reaction to JuanValdez and others saying it was no big deal for kids to be handcuffed and thrown in jail, even if they hadn't done anything wrong. Part one of this thread was pre-yesterday's article. There was actually a debate then, between thinking people on two sides of an issue. Since yesterday's article, practically everyone but you has backed off. If it had come out that all those kids had guns, I would have backed off. The new information from yesterday happened to support my case and so the thinking people from the other side changed their positions. All but you. And Max wasn't posting because you insulted him or disagreed with him. He was posting because he disagreed with you. There's a lot of that going around.

 

Just because HayesStreet is the only one posting doesn't mean there aren't others who agree with him...

 

The races don't happen until after the cops leave or before they get there.

This incident was overreaction by the cops.

The aftermath is ovverreaction by everyone else.

This stuff's been goin on since 1998 when we'd all go down to the Best Buy parking lot at Westheimer and Highway 6. I haven't been part of that scene for the last 4 years. It's probably been going on before that. And it will go on forever, no matter how many arrests they make.

If the police totally crack down on this stuff, more people will hit the raves with the X. When cops crack down on that, people will go back to the old days of just green housin the weed.

If this ever becomes a police state, the dumb ones will sniff the households and the rest of us will probably go back the the Fight Club.

Growing up in Houston high schools, you're going to get your kicks one way or the other.

All this taxpayer money that goes to the police cracking down on one thing, just pushes the crowd towards another thing.

I guess it's all going to stop when finally all the kids get cornered into bowling or going to the movies....which would suck for me cause I hate teens at movie theaters.

Rant over.

 

Hayes:

You are so off base it's almost comical. You go to findlaw and get a quarter of the law and start posting away. As to what constitutes notice under the law allow me to illustrate with an example.

If I carry a gun pursuant to a CHL, I can carry into any qualifying business that does not post the statutorily required signage. If there is a store that has a sign that say "No Weapons Allowed," you can bet your ass that I'm packing. That sign does not fit the statute. It's a clear indication of their wishes, but it does not fit the law. So unless they change their sign or notice that I'm packing and ask me to leave I have broken NO LAW. Whether you agree or not does not change the color of legal litmus paper.

Same thing applies here. I have shopped at that store. They claim to have No Loitering signs (which don't seem to fit the statute). I've shopped ALL OVER that shopping complex MANY TIMES. I have NEVER noticed such a sign. There is a concept in law that all notices must be posted so as to be conspicuous. Most (NOT ALL...BUT MOST) of these kids committed no crime. But they sure as hell were arrested.

I don't know why I'm surprised. You have shown an inability to tell the difference between reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop and probable cause to justify an arrest. I shouldn't expect you to get this one either.

You seem to indicate that because KMart complained to the cops weeks before that the cops can just round everybody up. What if this bankrupt company decided a few days before that these kids are ok because they come into the store to buy drinks and small items like Scrunchis, and some money is better than no money? HPD never communicated with them. Do private property owners not have the right to change their mind? Is it that once you complain to the cops you relinquish your rights to the cops forever and ever, Amen? Isn't criminal trespass an offense which requires the aggrieved to press charges? I think it is. The cops can't unilaterally decide the will of the property owner. Unless Miss Cleo went to the academy recently.

The cops were there to bust up drag racing. They got there and waited...and waited...and waited. Nobody was doing it. The Captain got frustrated and ordered his men to "ARREST EVERYBODY IN SIGHT." My only regret is that you weren't buying a gallon of milk at KMart then. Your milk would have gone sour...your car would have been towed...your hands would have been bruised...and your attitude would be different.