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

My point was that everyone there looking at cars and watching races knew they were being a nuisance to the property owners, and knew that they weren't supposed to be there. When I was there I understood that and understood that I could be prosecuted for being there. Its a risk that I believe everyone there understood, whether they accepted it or not. I did. It's hard for me to believe that there were no races before 12:30. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a crowd at Sonic to be arrested.

I specifically remember hearing someone yell, "Don't worry, if your not a minor they can't do anything to you," one time when the cops drove in. If cops are running you off, they damn well be able to do something to you. Maybe arresting everyone was a bit harsh, a warning or a citation may have been better. I recently received a citation for trespassing. I didn't go to jail. That's another story though.

 

It only gets worse. This was a major league **** up. Now, even business owners are pissed and the city is probably going to get their pants sued off.

Outstanding work.

<i>Raid at hot dog joint preceded Kmart bust
By ROMA KHANNA
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle

Houston police Capt. Mark Aguirre, the man who ordered the arrests of 278 people at a westside Kmart last weekend, prodded a local restaurant to allow his officers to conduct a similar raid of its parking lot Saturday in a sting that netted 25 arrests.

Officials with the James Coney Island at 5745 Westheimer said they felt used after police swept in and arrested 25 people, some of whom were customers, for criminal trespass.

"We were cooperative with the idea (of the raid), but are not necessarily happy with the execution," said Darrin Straughan, a vice president with the restaurant chain. "We are victims here, too. We never imagined that this is the way it would be handled or that legitimate customers would be arrested."

Straughan said Aguirre approached the company two weeks ago and told restaurant officials that illegal drag racing along Westheimer had caused several fatal accidents and prompted neighborhood complaints. Aguirre asked the company to post four no-trespassing signs in the parking lot and to sign paperwork allowing police to make the arrests on the restaurant's property.

Company officials went along with Aguirre's plan, Straughan said, thinking their actions would be part of a subdued enforcement of city trespassing ordinances.

Instead, a swarm of officers backed by a police helicopter descended on the restaurant about 1:15 a.m. Saturday, rounding up customers and other people gathered in the parking lot. Police said the arrests continued until 4:30 a.m.

Most of those arrested, Straughan said, were among a group of motorcyclists that has gathered at the restaurant every weekend for nine years without problems.

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.

"We were almost ready to leave when all the patrol cars came in and started blocking the entrances and exits," Coello said. "I wanted to lock my car, and they would not let me. They told me to shut up and walk to the back."

Coello's sister-in-law and niece were left behind, stranded. Police took Coello, her brother and sister to jail. Eventually, their mother shelled out $900 in bail, and the three siblings were freed.

Coello says she intends to sue the city.

"I don't see how they can call it trespassing when we were eating at the restaurant," she said. "We kept trying to explain that to police but they would not let us."

Coello's complaint is similar to that of dozens, if not hundreds, of people arrested at a Kmart and Sonic Drive-In in the 8400 block of Westheimer just after midnight Sunday.

In that incident, dozens of police -- led by Aguirre and again targeting illegal drag racing -- raided the businesses' parking lots about 12:30 a.m. Several officers said that when no evidence of drag racing was found, Aguirre ordered the arrests of the 278 people gathered there.

Those arrests prompted complaints that police failed to discriminate between loitering teens and legitimate customers when making arrests.

Straughan said James Coney Island has received about 50 customer complaints about the arrests, and the company believes that the police violated their agreement with the restaurant.

"We signed a trespass affidavit that said `James Coney Island requests on our behalf that the Houston Police Department requests all persons who are not patrons in the normal course of business to immediately leave the property or be arrested,' " Straughan said, quoting the agreement.

But no one had the opportunity to "immediately leave," Straughan said.

"From what we have learned, nobody that HPD arrested was asked whether they were there as a customer," he said. The police "just showed up, blocked off entrances, and arrested everybody."

Straughan declined to comment on Aguirre, but he said the company plans to file a complaint with the police department. Officials with Kmart did not respond to calls for comment.

Police spokesman Robert Hurst said Wednesday that he couldn't speak about Straughan's concerns because police are investigating Sunday's arrests in the Kmart parking lot. Hurst declined to say whether the incidents at James Coney Island would be part of that investigation.

As police and the district attorney's office attempt to sort out Sunday's mass arrests at Kmart and Sonic Drive-In, local defense lawyers say such raids are "arrest them first and ask questions later" situations that leave room for many legal challenges.

Lawyers questioned whether the no-trespassing signs posted before the arrests are sufficient warning for a criminal trespassing arrest.

"When you have got 400 kids in a parking lot, signs are obscured," said Chip Lewis, a Houston defense lawyer. "The best notice would have been to give them formal citations. There was no reason for this to come to this many arrests."

Citations would have provided adequate warning that arrests could follow, said lawyer Anthony Osso.

"It is extremely indicative of the mentality of whoever was in charge that when they had the option of giving a citation in lieu of arresting someone, they chose to make arrests," Osso said. "Those arrests were unnecessary."

Several lawyers interviewed Wednesday said those who pleaded guilty after their arrests Sunday can request a trial, arguing that their pleas were made under duress. Many of those who pleaded guilty, some of whom were teenagers, said they did so to avoid spending another night in jail.

"They were still under the shock that many of them were arrested without just cause," said Osso. "If you have never been in trouble before, and you believe the police are there to protect you, you will plead if they say you can get out."

Members of City Council said Wednesday that they had received many e-mails and phone calls regarding the weekend arrests and that the public seems outraged about the operation.

"You have young kids whose lives are now forever marked by having been arrested for criminal trespassing ... in what seems like it wasn't an appropriate endeavor," said Councilman Gabriel Vasquez.

Councilman Gordon Quan said he was worried about young people having to report the arrests when applying to college or for jobs.

"We could have resolved this with citations more easily," Quan said. "I'd like to see if there's any way that possibly can be changed."

Mayor Lee Brown said he has asked the city's Office of Inspector General to speed up its investigation.

"They are looking at all aspects of what happened that night," Brown said. "There are still a lot of questions." </i>

 

Clearly these arrests were justified. I mean, com'on. Some of these people were motorcycle riders. You know what kind of things those people are into.

And I don't know who would think it a good idea to have a 36 year-old out without supervision during the time this raid happened.

 

Appalling. I wonder if JCI is going to seek legal redress from the city for damage done to their business and violation of their property rights.

 

Well, HayesStreet is right about one thing at least. Controversy sells papers and HPD acts accordingly. Forget about pinning K-Mart on one bad, rogue cop. He'd done the same thing (at least) once already, you can bet there were complaints and you can bet they fell on deaf ears. That's how it goes with the police, until someone gets caught misbehaving on video or until the ****up is so colossal it makest the papers.

If I had a dollar for every time I had a perfectly good explanation for a cop, which would have cleared a bad situation up, and he told me to "shut the hell up," well, I'd have ten or fifteen dollars. Which would be ten or fifteen dollars too many.

Bottom line: it's happened before, HPD ignored it and left the same guy in charge of a raid. It's not an isolated incident. And I'm guessing that means HPD (and not just Aguirre) is on the hook for this. Lawyers? Ref? Max? Need a legal opinion here.

As for Hayes, this would be another in a string of great times to say I told you so. When I suspect the cops of bad behavior, the facts are almost never so plainly on my side, so you'd think I'd enjoy the opportunity. But I love this board and I don't want enemies here. After all, we're drawn together by our love of the Rockets. The hangout's an awesome thing and I deeply appreciate it, but it's a side dish. Hayes can come back here and say that now that more facts are in, he agrees the K-Mart thing was a bad, bad thing, worthy of complaint, worthy of lawsuit, or he can just stop posting in a thread whose facts no longer support his argument (like Juan and others did a long time ago), and we can be friends or enjoy detente. But if he still wants to support HPD on this -- and by now that would mean on the JCI thing, too -- well, I guess I'll just have to go ahead and pull out the "I told you so" when these cases are all resolved the way that they will be in the end. Publicity and controversy aren't always a bad thing. Sometimes they force people -- even HPD -- to do the right thing. I've no doubt that will be the case here. Refman said he might go watch the action at the courthouse. I might join him there, just to watch that b*stard Aguirre squirm.

 

In order for a 1983 action against the department, there will have to be proof of "deliberate indifference on the part of the relevant decision maker." There is too much that we don't know to really say yes or no for sure. The facts sure look bad for HPD. Who the relevant decision maker I do not know. Whether that specific person knew Aguirre was prone to this type of action I do not know. There are other fine points of municipal liability under 1983 that I may be forgetting. It has been a long time since I took this course. Once the 2 questions I listed above are answered I find it likely that the facts are pretty bad for HPD. But that's just an educated guess at this point. I can safely say that the suits will survive any challenge for being frivolous.

A little courthouse action followed by lunch at Ruggle's at the Ballpark. I'd be up for that.

 

As the new article about JCI points out whether to arrest or to issue a citation is COMPLETELY at the discretion of the police. Why would a judge throw out the curfew violations? There would be NO justification for doing so. "...when they had the option of giving a citation in lieu of arresting someone, they chose to make arrests," Osso said."

Cool.

I'll pass. What could I possibly be wrong about? I've consistently stated Aguirre overreacted. Should the 36 yr old et al have been arrested? No, that was Aguirre overreacting. You think NO ONE should have been arrested. I disagree and there are NO FACTS that support your opinion.

I am their enemy? So does that make me anti-HPD? Does that put you and me on the same side?

Refman, we've talked about YOUR legal prowess before, so I'd be careful how cocky you are in your posts. I don't use findlaw or Westlaw or Nexis although I have in the past for research. I make points I feel are logical and draw on my general knowledge of the legal system. You might try it. For instance, no one who was issuing opinions on 'trespassing' knew what the Code actually said, including you. I used Google to find it and make points that logically come from that. You disagree with me. No problem. You don't like me. No problem. You think I'm comical? I think its comical you claim to have an informed legal opinion when it should be obvious we don't even have all the facts. We have a couple of journalistic accounts.

Sorry but look again at the code. They only have to be in plain sight every 1,000 feet unless your talking about a forest. The fact that you 'didn't see it' would not be a good defense unless they were posted more than 1,000 feet apart or out of plain site. Saying (as the article did) that there were so many kids loitering that they couldn't see the NO LOITERING signs should be REAL interesting as a defense in Court, LOL.

BTW: I believe your interpretation is at odds with mrpaiges as well.

Everyone that was not at KMart to shop at KMart risked being arrested. Those that were eating at JCI, shopping in KMart, and eating at Sonic should be in the clear and have all the right in the world to sue HPD. Aguirre overreacted, as I have said in every post for quite awhile.

No indication this happened. Not from KMart or anyone else. The fact that JCI SIGNED an agreement with HPD for this VERY PROBLEM is indicative of the businesses attitude (before this public outcry of course).

Well, again we don't have the facts. This latest article Jeff posted seems to indicate some CITY ordinances on trespassing. If you complain to the police about a problem you want them to fix, it would seem reasonable that you (KMart) would then have to REVOKE that request. To say that HPD should call KMart once a week and say 'do you still hate those 500 kids gathering outside like you did last week?' is stupid.

First there were no signs, now it turns out there were signs. First there were NO justified arrests, now we know almost 50 were concrete violations of curfew. First there was NO reason to arrest people at Sonic, now we know that is a congregation point for the races. Each day we learn more facts that go against your overreaction.

No doubt I would have been outraged if they had arrested me for buying a gallon of milk. Thank god I get my groceries delivered.

This is where I have consistently said Aguirre overreacted.

Hmmm, again it seems that a discussion of what is sufficient for trespassing is warranted.

Even these defense lawyers are not arguing it was ILLEGAL to arrest these people.

I've been accused of killing threads, but never of abandoning one in full tilt. I've got a time difference Batman. I have consistently said Aguirre overreacted. That is as far as I'll go. Arresting all those kids at KMart and Sonic was not a bad, bad thing. As for the facts Batman, as more come in the likelihood that all those kids will 'get off' gets slimmer and slimmer.

I'll be waiting.

 

Wait a second....hold on!!!

JAMES FREAKING CONEY ISLAND???!!! They're messing with customers of James Coney Island???

IT'S FREAKING PERSONAL NOW!!! I personally contribute about 1/8 of the total revenues to JCI each year.

CHILI DOG EATERS UNITE!!!

 

He's got a point. And a great rallying cry.

 

Your posting the criminal trespass statute goes against your own point. The sign of which the Code speaks is a sign barring entry. The signs posted do no such thing. The Code points out that in order to be guilty of criminal trespass YOU must be asked to leave. Not a group of your buddies...YOU. You can defame my professional prowess all you'd like if it makes you feel good. I really couldn't care less. Nobody...not even HPD...is suggesting that these particular kids were warned. That's pretty telling. I have said many times that we don't have all the facts. But unless it comes out that KMart called the cops requesting that the kids be rounded up and that the kids were warned it is not a good bust EXCEPT as to the 40 or so who were violating curfew.

They had no notice that entry was forbidden. KMart allows people to enter all the time. Where we don't have all the facts is whether these kids were ever told to leave. Also I doubt that asking somebody to leave generally lasts forever...we need to know how long such an admonition lasts.

You argue that the sign did not satisfy the statute because it did not bar entry. The statute says nothing of sign regulting behavior once on the property.

An agreement that HPD then breached. You can call Aguirre's behavior an overreaction all you'd like...but it seems ON THE FACTS WE HAVE that he violated the 4th Amendment as to those were patronizing the establishments. This was extremely poor police work.

Had KMart signed a paper similar to the one JCI signed then you're right. But there is nothing to state that they did. To call HPD in June saying that a group of kids is hanging out in the parking lot and that you don't like it does not justify a mass arrest in August. That violates logic. Now had KMart called up the cops closer in time to the arrests and said "If youy see kids get them out of here." then we have something different. Then again...the kids would had to have been asked to leave. There's no evidence that that happened.

The city ordinance (assuming there is one) would have to be consistent with state law on the issue.

Were people racing I'd say round them up. I hate that racing. I stay away from the Richmond strip on the weekends because of it. That's not what happened. Aguirre and crew showed up expecting a huge drag racing bust. When nobody was racing Aguirre found the only way he could to still have a big bust...just arrest them all...guilty or not.

 

Well in your last post you went to a lot of trouble to tell us all "I've shopped ALL OVER that shopping complex MANY TIMES. I have NEVER noticed such a sign," so my first question is: how do you know what the signs say?

And the Code also says the warning can be written or verbal, so if the cops warned them before then they were trespassing.

I guess you think those are 500 DIFFERENT kids going the same spot every weekend.

Here's a legal lesson for you Refman: Its not slander if its true.

We'll see.

See the NO FISHING coversation with mrpaige above.

Amazing you can form such a CONCLUSIVE opinion all the while admitting you are missing relevant facts. Most distrurbing.

What? You either were in a hurry or you've confused yourself.

See NO FISHING conversation with mrpaige above.

We don't have all the facts. And the point is the JCI signed an agreement because there is a problem, and it goes to show the businesses WERE on board for police intervention.

No, it does not. Your logic just sucks. How is it illogical for the police to continue to follow up on complaints they get from the business and community about these kids? The fact is the Code does not have a temporal limitation on it. Even if it did it wouldn't be a few weeks.

You are making temporal distinctions with NO IDEA what the point of law is.

Oh my, how insightful. Not relevant or on point at all, but insightful.

 

Because the news showed a sign in a far corner of the parking lot.

Not necessarily. Prove that each individual defendant had been warned. That's what the DA will have to do.

Very easy for you to say when you haven't seen my legal work...haven't sat on the other side of a case...etc etc etc. It always comes back to this with you. You disagree with me...you're convinced on your interpretation of the law so I must be a crappy lawyer. Whatever. I never indicated that it was slander or any other type of defamation in a legal sense. By the way...written on a BBS it would be libel. If you insist on being a smartass...get the terminology right.

Conclusive? How many times have I written "If....." Don't just dismiss the if.

In a hurry. I was on my way out to go to the gym.

Getting personal again.

the law will imply a reasonableness standard where the stsutes are silent. Whether the courts have decided this I do not know...I even said that in my post. Conversly you are saying there are no temporal distinctions to be made while having NO IDEA what the point of law is. I guess we're even on that one.

Of course it is relevant. If the criminal trespass statute says you have to be warned, but the City ordinance says you don't then the ordinance will likely be held invalid.

Bottom line...this has degenerated into a pissing contest between the two of us and that is not what I intended (and I don't think you did either) at the outset. This is no longer beneficial to anybody.

 

That was what I was using to make my interpretations. Clearly, there are areas well beyond what the law specifically states that would require interpretation.

I admit that my interpretation was merely adding my own view of what constitutes "reasonableness", but it's an open question as to whether my views would coincide with the views already established in previous cases or what would be established in future cases.

So, it's really not fair to point to something I've said as gospel or even close to gospel. That's just my interpretation given the facts we know and my own personal experiences and personal concepts of what is or isn't reasonable in the context of what is written as law.

At this point, I'd call for a "Let's Agree to Disagree" and end the arguing over our interpretations over and over again. But maybe that's just me.

 

It's not just you. I'm in favor of that as well.

 

hayes -- why the need to rag on a guy personally??? that's the second time I've seen you do that related to someone's skills or prowess in their profession. why? how does it further the conversation other than to create ill will?? which ultimately leads to locked threads....

 

Touche`(although you did say 'defame me').

 

Originally posted by Refman
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.

This is why I got personal. You can say I'm wrong, that's cool. I've tried to remove my personal digs in general since people seem to get pissed, but that only lasts if I get the same in return.

As is I've responded to one of Refman's digs I thought was funny so we should be ok.

 

We're ok. I just get a little sensitive when told on a BBS that I'm no good at the way I put food on the table (I think that is what Max picked up on). Overall...no worries.

 

I understand...it's easy to do that....there was a gentleman whom I had arguments with from time to time who I've resigned myself to not responding to AT ALL given personal attacks. I just see no place for it...sometimes it just happens...but if it's a habit, I won't tolerate it.

 

More...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/front/1545638

Sonic officials say raid at restaurant unwanted
By ROMA KHANNA
Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle
A yellow traffic light was the difference between freedom and detention for several people who were arrested as they waited to drive out of a west Houston parking lot last weekend as police began a controversial raid.

Natalee Torres, her boyfriend and three friends were leaving the Sonic Drive-In at 8404 Westheimer on their motorcycles about 12:30 a.m. Sunday when a traffic light at the exit changed. Two made it through the light; the others were left behind.

"Out of nowhere, 50 cop cars came out and blocked every entrance," said Torres, a 21-year-old student at Wharton Community College. "We had no idea what was going on. They told us to get off our bikes and go to the back of the parking lot."

Torres and the hundreds of others in a parking lot shared by the Sonic and a 24-hour Kmart Super Center were the targets of a police raid, led by Capt. Mark Aguirre, to curb illegal drag racing. The raid, and a similar one at a nearby James Coney Island on Saturday, have prompted complaints that the 278 arrests excessively punished loitering teens -- not drag racers -- and included legitimate customers.

Sonic officials said Thursday that they never complained to police about the regular weekend crowd, had no warning of the raid and ordered employees to protect customers as the operation began.

Dismayed Sonic employees refused to allow police to tow 12 cars that the arrested customers were forced to leave in the lot.

"We wanted the opportunity for our customers to come get their cars without paying towing charges," said Celina Abernathy, a Sonic spokeswoman. Such charges can exceed $100. "Obviously we don't want our customers arrested. That is just common sense."

Sonic has never warned trespassers, filed complaints or signed paperwork to allow police to make arrests under the city trespassing ordinance, Abernathy said. Kmart officials have declined to explain the steps they took before the arrests.

"We have no no-trespassing signs on our property, though there are some nearby," Abernathy said. "And we never signed any paperwork."

Sonic officials are waiting for the result of a Houston Police Department internal investigation before they decide whether to pursue further action.

Many of those arrested will not be as patient.

Torres, who said she still has bruises from the plastic handcuffs, has retained Houston lawyer Rocket Rosen.

"I feel violated and confused," Torres said. "It was unbelievable the way they treat you like animals. I have never been subject to anything like that."

Torres recalled the force used against a driver who was next to her in front of the traffic signal when the raid began. He tried to complete a right turn onto Westheimer, but police ordered him out of the car.

"They threw him on the back of his truck," Torres said of the police, "and yelled for him to get to the back."

Rosen said he will fight the charges and explore the possibility of lawsuits.

"They didn't know what hit them," Rosen said. "Clearly the police were out of control here. I am hoping that once it comes to judges and prosecutors they admit they made a mistake and drop charges. But it will not end there."

As lawsuits are weighed, the Harris County district attorney's office has said it will examine the arrests. Tommy La Fon, lead prosecutor investigating police in the Kmart arrests, said it's too early to say if the case will be presented to a grand jury.

"We're trying to get a hold on all the facts and circumstances," said La Fon, who works for the district attorney's Police Integrity Division. "I don't have enough information to say this happened or that happened."

La Fon said his office has issued subpoenas and also has asked HPD for information.

"Once we look at the circumstances, ultimately it will be like any other case," La Fon said. "If there's evidence of criminal misconduct, it will be presented to a grand jury. If there is no criminal misconduct, we'll close it with a letter saying we won't be prosecuting."


Chronicle reporter Carol Christian contributed to this story.