Tx moml letting Kids Play Outside is Arrested, Charged with Child Endangerment

[longnecker]

Tammy Cooper and her husband moved to their house on a cul-de-sac in a quiet La Porte, Texas neighborhood so they would have a safe place for their nine and six-year-old children to grow up.
And Cooper thought she was reaping the benefits of her suburban lifestyle as she sat on her lawn and watched her children play on their scooters. But this tranquility was interrupted when a police car pulled in front of her home and the officer approached her. Cooper asked him what he was here for. “We’re here for you,” he responded.
What had happened is that Cooper’s neighbor had called the cops and said that Cooper was allowing her children to play in the cul-de-sac unsupervised.
Cooper was arrested for child endangerment, and spent the next 18 hours in prison.
The charges were eventually dropped against Cooper, who says she was watching her children from the lawn the whole time. Now Cooper is suing the La Porte Police Department, the officer and the busybody neighbor for the humiliating experience.
Speaking through a spokesperson, the La Porte Police Department said they are “confident of the known actions of the officers on the scene that evening.” For her part, the nosy neighbor has yet to comment
http://nj1015.com/weird-news-texas-m...burban-street/

[Bellicose]

What? Heck when I was younger I was damn near never supervised by adults when I was playing outside, and we didn't live in a cul-de-sac. We lived in a pretty popular apartment complex. Before that we lived on a somewhat slow street right behind a lake. I used to go to the lake all the time with just me and my friends.

[Jessica]

Six and nine months is one thing. Six and nine years OLD? Holy cow. If there isn't more to this story then that's a ridiculous thing to arrest a mother for - especially if she was watching them the whole time.

[terri]

There has to be more to this story. Did mom go inside to take a phone call? Make lunch? During that time, did the kids not see a car or something? Were the kids doing something to disturb this particular neighbor, other than just playing? (Let's face it - some people just don't like kids.)

Here's what I know - there are a BUNCH of unsupervised kids in my apartment complex that are CONSTANT pains in the ass. I had a patio chair stolen, they used the sidewalk chalk I had for little ones to write profanity all over my patio and the walls of the apartment building, have thrown mail all over the steps of my apartment building (sale flyers and things the mailman doesn't put in our individual mailboxes) and they are forever riding bikes and scooters without helmets and not exactly wary of the cars that tend to speed through the 15 mph lot. They tear through my building running and screaming (and most of them don't live in this building), knocking on doors and running, etc. These are school age kids who really shouldn't need constant supervision, but they can be really irritating. And I *love* kids.

I have gone out and did the 'mean old lady' stare down several times and they generally move on. I don't know their parents - because I never see them.

There is also a 5 year old boy who likes to be out with all these older kids -- and he's the one I worry about. I feel that he is too little to be running around this neighborhood without an adult. He is forever knocking on my door to see if there are kids who want to play and he has come inside my apartment and asked to play with toys -- all of this without me EVER meeting - or seeing - his parents. He generally just hangs out with all the older kids, who *do* tend to look out for him... while they're doing their own not-so-neighbor friendly stuff, though. (sigh)

Now, mostly, this is just kids being kids and I just ignore it and go about my business. But you'd better believe that I would be calling the police if I thought these kids were doing something more dangerous or destructive than just being obnoxious little shits. Of course, this would all be unnecessary if I knew their parents and could address this with them directly.

[Beau Stockard]

Jessica,

If there isn't more to this story then that's a ridiculous thing to arrest a mother for - especially if she was watching them the whole time.

You're right,of course. It does appear to be true that the police may have rushed to judgement before carrying out proper police investigative procedures here. However, the official police statement suggests that they're pretty confident in standing by the officers' conduct. The 'charges have been dropped on child endangerment' , but the Cooper's are suing the Police Department, the concerned neighbor, and the police officers for not following proper procedures. Anyone know what police officers in Texas must do before they are allowed to arrest a suspect on child endangerment grounds and hold them for further questioning? What rights of the Cooper woman were violated while she was being held for questioning ? Anyone see any comments from the Cooper family lawyer?

[Kid Lester]

Here's what I know. They were playing IN THE CUL DE SAC. That's right in front of their own house. Police department is wrong. End of story. I don't care if she was outside with them or not. If my 6 and 9 year old kids are playing in front of my house, that is not a crime. Whether I'm out on the lawn or checking on them from time to time out the window.

[Beau Stockard]

KL. I don't think that it is so cut and dry as that until we find out what the 'probable cause ' was for the responding officers to take the woman into custody. If, for example, the woman was impaired on the lawn, drunk ,or under the influence of meds , illegal controlled substances , etc. could be cause to assume the woman wasn't capable of supervising her kids, even endangering their safety.

[Joe Walther]

Jessica, You're right,of course. It does appear to be true that the police may have rushed to judgement before carrying out proper police investigative procedures here. However, the official police statement suggests that they're pretty confident in standing by the officers' conduct. The 'charges have been dropped on child endangerment' , but the Cooper's are suing the Police Department, the concerned neighbor, and the police officers for not following proper procedures. Anyone know what police officers in Texas must do before they are allowed to arrest a suspect on child endangerment grounds and hold them for further questioning? What rights of the Cooper woman were violated while she was being held for questioning ? Anyone see any comments from the Cooper family lawyer?

Duly-sworn police officers in Texas need the same thing to make arrests as duly-sworn police officers all over the country need: probable cause. The authority to make such arrests is vested in them statutorily via a standing implied administrative warrant. In other words, if the circumstances create probable cause, they don’t need permission to make arrests.

As for the period over which they may hold an accused, it depends on the charges. Unless the accused was arrested under the auspices of the Patriot Act—no bearing on this matter whatsoever—charges of some sort would have to be brought within a range of 24 to 72 hours.

As to your contention that an “official” police statement tended to support the actions of the arresting officer, such statements are meaningless. I have yet to read of any incident where such statements did NOT back the arresting officers unequivocally or, at worst, conditionally and in glowing terms to boot.

The fact is that this news article tells us absolutely NOTHING relative to the specifics of this incident except that the charges were dropped. And, the only reason for reporting that the charges were dropped was because the entire point of the article had nothing to do with informing the public and virtually everything to do with enticing readership and invoking emotional responses.

The fine Republic of Texas has, for years, self-anointed itself as a “law and order state.” It’s essential in Texas that authorities NOT appear soft on crime. Demonstrating low intellectual and emotional IQs, as well as complete ineptness in applying common sense are forgivable. But appear soft on crime at your own risk.

Politicians have lost elections; police chiefs have been fired; and judges have been recalled because of the mere suspicion of being “soft on crime.”

In a case of child endangerment where the evidence is strong, the police would have presented its findings to a prosecutor and the accused would have been in the midst of a probable cause hearing with the two sides arguing over bail within a matter of a few hours.

Texas does NOT drop charges even if they’re a tad weak. So, whenever they do drop them, it’s reasonable to assume that they had nothing legitimate from the start. And, although dropping charges is a rarity in Texas, its most frequent cause is either some overzealous Barney Fife type “throwing the book” at someone; or it’s because some self-absorbed jack-boot exercised the right to be an asshole.

As for the reasons that the Coopers are suing the police, et al, the article wasn’t very specific. But it does not matter. The case will never reach a courtroom.

The fact that TEXAS dropped the charges—this is especially telling in that state—amounts to a minimum of a passive admission that their police officer screwed up big time. But you can make book on two things. The police department will never admit this publicly and the arresting officer will be taken out behind the police woodshed.

This will end up as an out of court settlement. Both the police department and the officer involved are covered under the legal doctrine of Qualified Immunity. Other than some damaged pride, it will not cost either entity a dime. Texas taxpayers will foot the bill. But they won’t mind a bit. A relatively small out of court settlement trumps the hell out of appearing “weak on crime.”

But as for the neighbor who started the whole thing, she’s not covered under the Qualified Immunity Doctrine. The Coopers are going to have to pay their own legal expenses plus any potential judgment or out of court settlement. They’re undoubtedly going to be in for some sleepless nights.

[Joe Walther]

KL. I don't think that it is so cut and dry as that until we find out what the 'probable cause ' was for the responding officers to take the woman into custody. If, for example, the woman was impaired on the lawn, drunk ,or under the influence of meds , illegal controlled substances , etc. could be cause to assume the woman wasn't capable of supervising her kids, even endangering their safety.

Yes it was cut and dried. We know that from the article, itself. They dropped the charges because either they had NO probable cause or they couldn't prove anything--which in criminal law amounts to the same thing! It's all about the difference between "real" guilt and "legal" wherein the latter is the only thing that counts in a criminal courtroom.

As well, I've been reading KL's posts and replies for about 5-years, now. And I'm betting that he already understands the ramifications you describe here. However, as I have done, he's simply discounted them because Texas dropped the charges, something they would not have done had they had shred of evidence to support any ONE of them.

[Beau Stockard]

duplication error

[Beau Stockard]

Joe, Regardless ,and in all recognition and respect to KL's previous posts on legal matters , there still remains many doubts about this particular case.

As to your contention that an “official” police statement tended to support the actions of the arresting officer, such statements are meaningless.

Mostly your exegesis was sterling and spot on except for the part that I quoted above. I disagree. Police officers good conduct service records and performance histories go to 'foundation', and can be very useful for the State's case against the lawsuit ; even persuading a Judge to determine the lawsuit to be frivolous , a waste of the tax payer's money and throw it out altogether. In which case , the Coopers get nothing ,but the responsibility for paying for the court costs and legal fees. The Coopers won't be the only ones "losing sleep", but their lawyer too. As for the 'reasons' that the State "dropped the charges ", they also are murky and open to all kinds of speculation besides the one you propose that the police officers "screwed up big time". The reason could have been the lack of sufficient evidence, toxicology tests, if administered , were inconclusive, or the head D.A. determined ,in his estimation, that prosecution of the case just wasn't cost-effective for them within their limited state budget. Who knows? Like you said, little in this story is clear or definitive ;to say the least.

[Beau Stockard]

As for the "nosy neighbor" I doubt that she'll have any worries to lose sleep over. I don't believe that there are any laws against being a concerned citizen and calling the police from your own home to issue a complaint of a disturbance in the neighborhood.

[cracker]

they used the sidewalk chalk I had for little ones to write profanity all over my patio and the walls of the apartment building

Some of that might be my fault. I get a little "artistic" when I've been drinking. I'm also really fond of profanity when I've been drinking. Its kind of a perfect storm made up of four letter words and sidewalk chalk...

[Joe Walther]

As for the "nosy neighbor" I doubt that she'll have any worries to lose sleep over. I don't believe that there are any laws against being a concerned citizen and calling the police from your own home to issue a complaint of a disturbance in the neighborhood.

You're correct. Unless, of course, there is no basis for the concern or complaint. But, we're never going to find out because this one will never get to court. I still maintain research connections with the Texas courts. Talk of suing is cheap; but, so far, I've found no civil pleadings or attorneys of record.

We’re comparing apples to oranges. I did not refer to police officers’ specific good conduct service records and histories. But I stand by my statement that police departments never fail to stand behind the actions of their officers, on the public record, even when there is a reason NOT to do it.

Other than in cases of culpable police misconduct, they have nothing to lose by doing this. Even when prosecuting authorities drop the charges or some judge tosses the matter out, they can always claim to have been doing their jobs.

You can continue flicking fly shit out of out of black pepper on this one if you like, but based on personal research experience with the Texas criminal justice system, I’m not buying any of it.

The fact is that these charges were dropped within 18-HOURS of the arrest. Behind the scenes in Texas criminal law circles, that’s called a major screw-up. And if you’ve had any direct experience in dealing with Texas criminal law, you’d know precisely what I’m talking about.

There’s no speculation here; for whatever reasons, this police officer made a mistake and prosecutors knew it. Whether it was honestly or erroneously applied is now a matter for civil litigation assuming it gets that far.

But no matter how it’s resolved, police departments in Texas—as well as several other states—will never publicly admit to operational mistakes. I've researched numerous cases where the police have raided the wrong home... not just in the same block as the intended target, but in an entirely different section of town!

But, never an official acknowledgement that the officers at the scene messed up. The best the victim's got boiled down to an apology for inconvenience caused and some reimbursement for damaged property.

[Beau Stockard]

Some of that might be my fault. I get a little "artistic" when I've been drinking. I'm also really fond of profanity when I've been drinking. Its kind of a perfect storm made up of four letter words and sidewalk chalk...

As the French say,

Defense d'afficher!

[Tracy]

I tend to think that the Cooper's neighbor has a little too little going on in her own life. Yup...kids can be annoying. Sometimes it's good to remember that we were all kids at one time? I personally didn't let my kids play outside by themselves until we moved to the Boonies. However, it sounds like these kids were perfectly safe and Mom did nothing wrong...time for the neighbor to get a hobby or maybe pay some more attention to Mr. Neighbor.

[Beau Stockard]

Tracy,

I tend to think that the Cooper's neighbor has a little too little going on in her own life. Yup...kids can be annoying

Here , I believe that you've attributed something that terri said in her comments to the neighbor's motives for calling police in the story . Unless I missed something in the article or news video, there is nothing to show that the neighbor was 'annoyed ' at the kids playing outside in the cul-de-sac and called police to complain . The article clearly stated that the neighbor called police to report what they believed to be children playing 'unsupervised' ,an obvious concern for the children's safety. Perhaps, the police over-reacted , but it wasn't because of any over-reaction by the neighbor. Possibly, the neighbor's view was obstructed and she did not see the parent sitting on the front lawn in close to where the kids were playing. Perhaps, even, the neighbor felt that to take further action on her own and approach the kids or the parent would be an even greater intrusion than calling police, or the next door neighbor may have been unable to do so because of some unclear reason such as being housebound, elderly, invalid, etc. When I was growing up in Brookview Apts. in Claymont, most of our neighbors were our friends' parents; even the elderly or single 'recluses' in the neighborhood were well-known to us . They were our secondary security blanket in watching to see if the neighborhood was safe to play in , a mutually supportive social network of people going about their lives in a local community.

[Tracy]

I suppose that could be true.

[max1]

Some of that might be my fault. I get a little "artistic" when I've been drinking.

Sounds like an excuse one would use when those pictures showed up from your collage years......Hey a guys gotta eat right?

[max1]

maybe pay some more attention to Mr. Neighbor.

Tracy, I owe you. This had me laughing this morning :-)