10110 Compton Road

"IN THE KNOW": Why did Nueces County Sheriff Jim Kaelin say the videotape footage is destroyed?

2011-01-31T13:04:00.000-08:00

"IN THE KNOW": Why did Nueces County Sheriff Jim Kaelin say the videotape footage is destroyed?

Why did Nueces County Sheriff Jim Kaelin say the videotape footage is destroyed?

YOU"RE FIRED! I understand you are now Twice as Nice? How bout a DOUBLE DOSE of Karma? Then, it can be twice as nice for your pleasure. How many times did Shelly Amaya and Jennifer Shearer "go at it" while at work or did she keep that strap on thing in her pants?How bout a sex offender sign in your front yard and in front of your establishment? Some say Karma is a bitch and a bitch you and your pleasured Nueces County Jailers deserve.

Jennifer Shearer is still employed as a Nueces County Deputy Officer. How can that be unless she falsified government records and failed to mention her participation / complicity in the sexual assault. Dont worry her picture is going out next. Pass the word to Shearer and then let her know that Dora et al is not like Nueces County Sheriff Jim Kaelin, Dora et al saves the video tapes. Those cost a lot more than fifty bucks and the Judge along with a "few good men" already have been furnished a copy. She said you that you could last forever with that huge phallic package. Unzip your pants and let us all have a look! After all no man could match you? Dont worry Dora said you "went at it" like the depraved warped man you are. Now lets compete man to man, I challenge You Jennifer Shearer to a PISSING contest and I will even allow you a head start pardon the pun. Can you piss on a fire. Like Nelly says in his song, "It's getting hot in here so take off all your clothes" and lets witness pathetic little you.

Jennifer Shearer then begins to follow us. We pull over and let her pass then behind her as she then turns so as to reposition herself behind us. We see a CCPD Car and approach to document the actions of Shelly Amaya's accomplice. Well, somehow the officer accuses us of following when in fact it was the other way around. My question is how can we be following Shearer when in fact Shearer is behind us and as the video demonstrates Shearer was the one stalking us. Me thinks the Female Officer and Jennifer Shearer are pals in an off duty capacity; they sure were buddied up during this event. The end result was the CCPD Officer impounded my car despite having insurance and we were not on a public thoroughfare. This is just the tip of the iceberg!

Hey Balderas, how do you like it when "she gets to stick her fingers in you"? Who made that policy was it you punk?? Everyone, now it is your turn to get gang raped, invaded in your own home because you are a UFO? That means you f'n owe. Thats what happens when a crooked judge makes a stroke of the pen because of a unpaid fine that was unpayable because he wanted to confine us for a class c misdemeanor punishable by fine only and NOT BY CONFINEMENT. But then again you already knew that You Cox sucker! So like my fair weather friend Johnny Canales always exclaimed on his show, "ESSO,...... TAKE IT AWAY". "YOU GOT IT"!

And what happens when a Nueces County Jailer violates an inmate while other jailers watch as if it were entertainment?

When a request for the videotape footage in writing; what answer did Jim Kaelin tender?

In the light most favorable to the innocence of the accused Jailers it seems video footage would solve the allegations?

That is of course assuming that these Nueces County Deputy Correction Officers did not violate any civil rights or any laws?

A Sexual Assault was committed by Shelly Amaya along with a still employed and sexually aroused (by the way) Officer Jennifer Shearer encouraging the act. Oh yeah and a bunch of male Nueces County Deputy Correction Officers watching Amaya as she tore the clothes off, slammed the inmate on the floor and proceeded to mount the inmate and insert her fingers into the inmates' vagina. Finally one officer removed the Jailer as she was bold enough to admit "she said, "that's right I did say I was going to get to stick my fingers in you" and Colonel Jessup would be proud of the spirit she said it in! You know how he was proud of admitting as if he were bragging?

Jessup: "What's going on? I did my job, I'd do it again!
[stands up defiantly]

Kaffie: we have to get Jessup to tell the court members that he ordered the code red.

I think he wants to say it. I think he's pissed off that he has to hide behind all this. I think he wants to say that he made a command decision and that should be then end of it.
[Starts imitating Jessup]
Kaffee: He eats breakfast 300 yards away from 4000 Cubans who are trained to kill him. And nobody's going to tell him how to run his unit least of all the Harvard mouth in his faggoty white uniform. I need to shake him, put him on the defensive and lead him right where he's dying to go.There is nothing on this earth sexier, believe me, gentlemen, than a woman you have to salute in the morning. Promote 'em all, I say, 'cause this is true: if you haven't gotten a blowjob from a superior officer, well, you're just letting the best in life pass you by.

Kaffee: *Colonel Jessep, did you order the Code Red?*
Judge Randolph: You *don't* have to answer that question!
Col. Jessep: I'll answer the question!
[to Kaffee]
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled.
Col. Jessep: *You want answers?*
Kaffee: *I want the truth!*
Col. Jessep: *You can't handle the truth!*
[pauses]
Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
Col. Jessep: I did the job I...
Kaffee: *Did you order the Code Red?*
Col. Jessep: *You're Goddamn right I did!*

As the inmate repeatedly dared Shelly Amaya to admit that she had already said she was going to stick her fingers in the inmate.

She said it and the male member of the Nueces County Jailer Audience pulled Shelly Amaya from on top of the naked inmate.

Why do they answer and say the videotape footage is destroyed?

Surely they would use it to vindicate themselves?

Heck,..... wouldnt that put and end to these allegations?

Jay Worthington conducting an internal affairs investigation? Yep, he is definitely worthless and Mike Lowrance well lets just say since it is not his wife who endured the sexual acts and it is Nueces County Sheriff Jim Kaelin who is his "dom" and it is Nueces County Sheriff's department from who he receives his authority and paycheck; who knows karma is life giving you back what you give, dish out and / or deserve I just pray Karma gives it to him and not his spouse. Yeah they are all little bitches,.... where is Bubba when we need him?

Thelma rodriguez tells all Parents the opposite and rubber stamps all documents the judge should at least read what he is permitting his fraudulent

2009-11-01T03:51:00.000-08:00

signature on governmental records!

"It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done."
--Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 2.01

Every member of the District Attorney's office is committed to the principal that justice is done, and our community is strengthened by providing the highest quality legal representation for the protection of the citizens of Texas.

Provisions for enforcement would have to be made by the agency owed for those employees who are paid with local funds.

2009-10-13T23:17:00.000-07:00

EI 10: Improve Collection of State Employee Debt

Improve the collection of debt owed the state by its employees.

Background

One subset of debt due the state is the amount owed by state employees. The Comptroller's warrant hold program reports that 10,343 state employees owed the state $44.3 million as of June 1996.[1] (Exhibit 1.) Currently, $28.3 million, or 63.9 percent, is owed through student loan programs. The Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSLC), which administers the federal guaranteed student loan program in Texas, is owed the largest proportion ($25.5 million, or 57.6 percent, of the total amount).[2] The debt held by TGSLC may be reinsured by the federal government. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's (THECB) Hinson-Hazelwood student loan program is owed $2.7 million, or 6.1 percent of the total amount.[3] Another $13.6 million (30.7 percent) is owed to the Attorney General for child support payments, while the remaining $2.4 million (5.5 percent) is due to the Comptroller's office for delinquent taxes and the Texas Workforce Commission for unemployment tax liability.[4]

Exhibit 1

State Debt Owed by State Employees, June 1996

Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.

Warrant holds

The Comptroller's warrant hold program offers all state agencies a tool to collect outstanding debts. Fifty-two agencies currently participate. The warrant hold program applies only to non-salary payments and is fairly simple. An agency sends the Comptroller's office a request to participate in the program. The Comptroller's Claims Division asks the agency to identify the source of debt owed the state. The agency submits identification numbers for the debtors (either individuals or organizations) to the Claims Division. From then on, as the Comptroller's office prepares warrants, the debtors' identification numbers are electronically checked against the prepared warrants.

If a state employee to whom a warrant is made payable owes money to an agency participating in the program, the warrant is held by the Comptroller's office, and the agency on whose behalf the warrant was printed is notified that the individual will not receive the warrant. The employee is notified of the withheld warrant, the outstanding debt amount, and the amount of the warrant withheld. If the warrant is to be released, the employee must contact the agency owed and agree upon a payment plan. The agency holding the debt then must contact the Comptroller's office to release the warrant. The agency may choose to collect on a certain portion of the debt before the warrant is released, or to release the warrant as soon as a payment agreement is reached.

If a state employee owes delinquent taxes to the Comptroller's office, the Government Code SS403.055(g) gives the Comptroller the authority to apply the warrant to the total amount that individual owes the state. Taxes can be offset--applying the warrant to the delinquent debt--by warrants other than salary. Taxes and other debts to the state may also be offset by lottery winnings, as authorized by the Government Code SS466.407.

Wage garnishment

In addition to warrant hold, the state also may collect debts through garnishment, a process by which part of an involuntary deduction is made from an individual's wages to repay a debt. Wage garnishment is a severe measure and one that is used only rarely. Under present law, Texas may garnish current wages for only two forms of debt: child support payments and student loans. The Texas Constitution specifically prohibits garnishment except in court-ordered child support cases, but federal law has superseded the constitution in the case of student loan repayment.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled in Orange County, Texas v. Ware, a 1991 decision, that the Texas constitutional prohibition against garnishment of current wages does not apply to an employer's withholding of an employee's compensation until the employee's debt to the employer is paid. The Court ruled that a garnishment occurs only when three parties are involved: the employer, the employee, and the third party creditor. Thus, holding a state employee's paycheck because the employee is indebted to the state would not appear to be an unconstitutional garnishment. It might be possible for the state to hold a salary payment if the applicable laws were changed.

Child support enforcement

Enactment of the federal Child Support Enforcement Act (P.L. 93-647) in 1975 strengthened the public's commitment to address the problem of nonsupport of children, with program administration left to the states. This commitment was further enhanced by the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) which required states to impose wage withholding on the noncustodial parent in all new or modified child support enforcement program cases. As of January 1, 1994, states were required to provide for immediate wage withholding for all support orders issued, regardless of whether a parent has applied for child support enforcement services.

Child support payments are generated through court orders. Custodial parents failing to receive child support payments may apply for collection services through the Office of the Attorney General (OAG). OAG also may begin collection services if a custodial parent applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits and is not receiving child support payments. OAG attempts to persuade the non-custodial parent to pay current and past-due child support. If this effort is unsuccessful, OAG then may begin the garnishment process by serving the non-custodial parent's employer with a court order or writ of withholding to turn over a portion of the parent's compensation. OAG may garnish up to 50 percent of the parent's disposable earnings to satisfy the debt. The specific amount is set by the court order or writ.

According to the warrant hold information, $13.6 million is owed the OAG for child support payments--$832,000 of which is owed by employees whose child or children receive AFDC and $12.8 million owed in non-AFDC cases. The federal government reimburses the state 66 percent of the costs related to child support enforcement.[5] In 1995, the state paid about 37 percent of the cost of AFDC and is entitled to the same proportion of the additional AFDC-related child support collections.[6]

Collection of outstanding student loans

In 1991, the federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act (P.L. 102-164; 20 U.S.C. SS1095a et seq.) gave TGSLC the ability to garnish up to 10 percent of a debtor's disposable pay. TGSLC may continue to garnish wages until the defaulted loan has been paid in full. TGSLC has established criteria for wage withholding. Wages may be withheld if an employee has at least $400 outstanding, a $12,000 salary, and a collection account that is being worked by a TGSLC collector.[7] TGSLC reports that most state workers with unresolved collection accounts (those in which no payment has been made in at least 60 days) who are candidates for wage withholding do not have large salaries. As of August 1996, 55 percent earned less than $20,000 a year, and 96 percent earned less than $30,000 annually.[8]

June 1996 data from the Comptroller's warrant hold program indicate that almost 5,600 state employees, or about 2.1 percent of total full-time equivalent employees, are in default on student loans. The total amount in default is $28.3 million.[9]

State employees owe TGSLC, THECB, and 20 institutions of higher education student loan debt. Information from the Comptroller's warrant hold program indicates that 4,600 employees owe TGSLC about $25.5 million, an amount representing about 90 percent of the total student loan debt of state employees.

The other state program with a substantial student loan debt is the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's Hinson-Hazelwood Program. The agency is due $2.7 million (9.5 percent of the total student loan debt) from state employees, according to data from the warrant hold program. The remaining 20 agencies (which comprise only about 0.5 percent of state employee student loan debt) are institutions of higher education, including the Texas State Technical College System, medical schools, and community colleges.[10]

Limitations to state collection programs

Several limits to the effectiveness of wage garnishment and warrant holds exist. The biggest limit to wage garnishment is that it can be used for only two state-administered programs. A constitutional amendment or a new federal law would be required to expand the program.

The largest limitation in the warrant hold program is that there is not a mandatory usage of the Comptroller's system. Moreover, the warrant hold program is effective only if an employee receives payments other than salary compensation. Debt for a state employee who never or rarely travels, for instance, could remain uncollected.

Another factor is the amount of time needed to collect a debt through warrant hold. A warrant is valid for two years, and the Comptroller's Claims Division reports that a fair number of withheld warrants simply expire. This occurs for any number of reasons; in some cases, the debtor never contacts the agency owed to work out a plan, or the agency owed chooses not to release the warrant. In at least some cases, at any rate, a withheld warrant is not a sufficient motive to prompt debtors to begin paying their debts. Some debtors may consider multiple withheld warrants sufficient cause to begin paying a debt, but generating that number of warrants may take months or even years.

A final limitation on the warrant hold program is that little aggregate information is available regarding collections and debts owed the state. The Comptroller's Claims Division receives information from agencies about outstanding debt to generate warrant holds, but agencies are not obligated to update this information after the initial data have been submitted.

Recommendations

A. State law should be amended to broaden the Comptroller's warrant hold program and require mandatory participation by all state agencies and institutions of higher education.

The Comptroller's warrant hold program applies only to warrants issued by the Comptroller's office. The program could be expanded so that any payments by the state would be withheld until debts owed by people receiving state payments are cleared.

Ultimately, the program could be expanded so that debtors to the state would be precluded from receiving licenses and permits.

B. State law should be amended to allow the Comptroller's office to promulgate and enforce rules regarding the submission of updated warrant hold information from state agencies and institutions of higher education to ensure accuracy.

C. State law should be amended to allow for the automatic offset of liabilities against warrants issued by the state.

This provision would allow a warrant that is issued and held to be applied against a debt owed the state, treating all debts like taxes are currently treated. This recommendation should not be applicable to salary payments.

D. State law should be amended to require automatic payroll deductions for state employees with delinquent debt payments.

If a state employee becomes delinquent in his or her repayment of debts to the state, the owed agency should be able to set up a payroll deduction automatically to repay the debt. For those deductions not established by federal or state law, the Comptroller's office should use its current statutory authority to establish the priority of deductions.

E. State law should be amended to allow the Comptroller's office to adopt a warrant hold policy relating to state salaries.

Using the Comptroller's warrant hold program to hold a state employee's paycheck because the employee is indebted to the state would not appear to be an unconstitutional garnishment.

Many state employees may not know that they owe a debt to the state until a warrant is issued and held. Notices of delinquency should be sent to all employees owing a debt by the agency owed, along with information regarding repayment procedures. Upon receipt of the notice, the delinquent employee would be responsible for contacting the owed agency to voluntarily set up a payment plan.

If no contact was made by the employee, the owed agency would be obligated to notify the Comptroller's office, the employee, and the employing agency that the employee's paycheck will be held. Arrangements for payment toward the debt would have to be made before the owed agency releases the warrant. As mentioned earlier, the Comptroller's office has the authority to establish the priority of payments for debts that neither federal nor state law address.

Provisions for enforcement would have to be made by the agency owed for those employees who are paid with local funds. The owed agency would have to determine which state employees are paid with local funds, and would then be obligated to establish a payment plan for the delinquent employee. The owed agency would have to notify the employee of the impending deduction and submit the payment plan to the employing agency for enforcement of the deduction.

Fiscal Impact

A stricter approach to collecting debt owed the state by state employees would presumably increase the amount of debt collected by the state. Implementation of these recommendations would require programming changes to the Texas Payee Information System and the Uniform Statewide Personnel/Payroll, incurring some costs which would be absorbed by the Comptroller's office. The cost of this recommendation is negligible.

Footnotes

[1] Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Count of State Employees on Hold, June 24, 1996, pp. 1-17. (Statistical report.)

[2] Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Count of State Employees on Hold, pp. 9-12.

[3] Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Count of State Employees on Hold, pp. 6-8.

[4] Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Count of State Employees on Hold, pp. 1-17.

[5] "The 1994 Green Book Overview of Entitlement Programs, Section 11. Child Support Enforcement Program" (http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/GB/sec11.txt). (Internet document.)

[6] "The 1994 Green Book Overview of Entitlement Programs, Section 10. Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Related Programs (Title IV-A)" (http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/GB/sec10.txt). (Internet document.)

[7] Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation, "Unresolved Collection Accounts as of August 12, 1996, by whether or not Defaulter meets TGSLC Wage Withholding Criteria; Workers Employed by a State of Texas Agency as of July 31, 1996, Sorted by Agency Name," August 20, 1996, p. 1. (Statistical report.)

[8] Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation, "Unresolved Collection Accounts as of August 12, 1996 by whether or not Defaulter meets TGSLC Wage Withholding Criteria; Workers Employed by a State of Texas Agency as of July 31, 1996, by Annual Salary Range," August 12, 1996, p. 1. (Statistical report.)

[9] Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Count of State Employees on Hold, pp. 1-17.

[10] Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Count of State Employees on Hold, pp. 1-17.

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Window on State Government
Contact Us
Privacy and Security Policy

Thelma Rodriguez the cox sucking rubber stamp

2009-10-01T00:27:00.000-07:00

Third Eye Blind - She Likes Me For Me Lyrics to thelma the fraud and prosecutes children and parents

2009-09-26T21:14:00.000-07:00

The versions out right now by the *artist* Pancho's Lament
(self titled album) and by David Crosby/James Raymond/Beth Hart
Both versions were used as theme song for Jack and Jill tv show.

When it comes down to this
juliet she's caught on to the clues
you know the one's that she missed
the one's that we knew
now she's got the news
she understands
she's not all wrapped up in the palm of his hands

juliet she won't come down
her heads high in the castle her hearts underground
it's as if "she didn't know"
the truth about romeo

the tables have turned
juliet she's got this brand new idea
and a few lessons that she's learned
how could she be so blind
in a spotlight so clear
now she understands
she's not all wrapped up in the palm of his hands

juliet...

what if he did love her
it sure did not show
there's a certain kind of sincerity
and when you know you'll know
i think she should go now
the truth doesn't lie
the truth doesn't lie
the truth doesn't lie
Send "Truth About Romeo" Ringtone to Cell

The hottest songs from Duncan Sheik

# Duncan Sheik - Barely Breathing Lyrics
# Duncan Sheik - On A High Lyrics
# Duncan Sheik - Wishful Thinking Lyrics
# Duncan Sheik - For You Lyrics
# Duncan Sheik - Half-life Lyrics
# Duncan Sheik - She Runs Away Lyrics
# Duncan Sheik - Bite Your Tongue Lyrics
# Duncan Sheik - Truth About Romeo Lyrics
# Duncan Sheik - Hymn Lyrics
# Duncan Sheik - Days Go By Lyrics

Fans who visit this lyrics also like:

# Wiley - Wearing My Rolex Lyrics
# Fuel - Hemorrhage Lyrics
# Third Eye Blind - She Likes Me For Me Lyrics
# Madonna - American Pie Lyrics
# Jem - Maybe I'm Amazed Lyrics
# 3 Doors Down - When I'm Gone Lyrics
# Backstreet Boys - Everybody Lyrics
# Bananarama - Venus Lyrics
# R. Kelly - I Believe I Can Fly Lyrics
# Seether - Fine Again Lyrics
# T-Pain - Ringleader Man Lyrics

taser students at school and the CCPD officer claims "I would have shot him (student) if he hurt me"

2009-06-22T01:28:00.000-07:00

Updated: November 13, 2007, 3:44 PM ET
Weary sues city of Houston, two officers over Taser arrest
Comment Email Print Share
ESPN.com news services

HOUSTON -- Houston Texans offensive lineman Fred Weary is suing the city and two police officers for a November 2006 arrest in which he was shot with a Taser gun during a traffic stop.

Fred Weary

Weary

In his lawsuit, filed Tuesday in federal court, Weary is accusing the city and the officers of excessive force, assault, racial profiling, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

"I have to put closure on this situation and this is my first step to closure," Weary told KRIV-TV in Houston. "It's really taken a toll on my life and my family. I didn't know last year that it would affect me the way it has. It's my right that I need to do something about it.

"I feel my rights have been violated that day last year," Weary told KRIV-TV. "I have had to deal with that for this whole entire year. I've thought about it a lot. It's been on my mind constantly."

The two officers said they stopped Weary because he didn't have a front license plate and was driving "suspiciously."

According to the police report, the 6-foot-4, 308-pound Weary became angry and uncooperative after being stopped in an area near Reliant Stadium, where authorities were on alert because of criminal activity. Weary was coming from a team practice when he was stopped.

Police said Weary was shot with a Taser after he pushed one of the officers away and then tried to come toward them after being told to put his hands on his vehicle.

A misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest was later dismissed because of insufficient evidence.

Weary's attorney, Joe Walker, told KRIV that his client's lawsuit doesn't specify a dollar amount.

"I will leave that to the sound discretion of the jury," Walker told KRIV.

The officers "clearly used race as a factor for reasonable suspicion and making a traffic stop of Mr. Weary," Walker said.

Walker said Tuesday that Weary would not have filed the lawsuit if he had received letters of apology from Mayor Bill White and Police Chief Harold Hurtt.

He had also asked for monetary compensation, which would have been donated to a police charity, and that the city review its policies regarding racial profiling and the use of Tasers.

"He never got his letter of apology or a concrete review of tasering," Walker said. "He asked for a copy of [taser] policies and they sent him a policy that was completely blacked out, censored."

Walker said the city's policy on Taser use needs to be re-examined because some reviews done by local media and advocacy groups show that in more than 350 of the first 900 police Taser incidents, no person was charged.

Weary's taser incident renewed controversy over the stun guns' use, prompting White to call for a study of how officers have used the devices. The study, being conducted by the University of Houston Center for Public Policy, is set to be done by January.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

§ 52.041. REFERRAL OF CHILD TO JUVENILE COURT AFTER

2008-06-14T23:28:00.000-07:00

§ 52.01. TAKING INTO CUSTODY; ISSUANCE OF WARNING
NOTICE. (a) A child may be taken into custody:
(1) pursuant to an order of the juvenile court under
the provisions of this subtitle;
(2) pursuant to the laws of arrest;
(3) by a law-enforcement officer, including a school
district peace officer commissioned under Section 37.081,
Education Code, if there is probable cause to believe that the child
has engaged in:
(A) conduct that violates a penal law of this
state or a penal ordinance of any political subdivision of this
state;
(B) delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a
need for supervision; or
(C) conduct that violates a condition of
probation imposed by the juvenile court;
(4) by a probation officer if there is probable cause
to believe that the child has violated a condition of probation
imposed by the juvenile court;
(5) pursuant to a directive to apprehend issued as
provided by Section 52.015; or
(6) by a probation officer if there is probable cause
to believe that the child has violated a condition of release
imposed by the juvenile court or referee under Section 54.01.
(b) The taking of a child into custody is not an arrest
except for the purpose of determining the validity of taking him
into custody or the validity of a search under the laws and
constitution of this state or of the United States.
(c) A law-enforcement officer authorized to take a child
into custody under Subdivisions (2) and (3) of Subsection (a) of
this section may issue a warning notice to the child in lieu of
taking the child into custody if:
(1) guidelines for warning disposition have been
issued by the law-enforcement agency in which the officer works;
(2) the guidelines have been approved by the juvenile
board of the county in which the disposition is made;
(3) the disposition is authorized by the guidelines;
(4) the warning notice identifies the child and
describes the child's alleged conduct;
(5) a copy of the warning notice is sent to the child's
parent, guardian, or custodian as soon as practicable after
disposition; and
(6) a copy of the warning notice is filed with the
law-enforcement agency and the office or official designated by the
juvenile board.
(d) A warning notice filed with the office or official
designated by the juvenile board may be used as the basis of further
action if necessary.
(e) A law-enforcement officer who has probable cause to
believe that a child is in violation of the compulsory school
attendance law under Section 25.085, Education Code, may take the
child into custody for the purpose of returning the child to the
school campus of the child to ensure the child's compliance with
compulsory school attendance requirements.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 115, § 2, eff. May 11, 1993;
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 15, eff. Jan. 1, 1996; Acts
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 6.08, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001,
77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 11, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th
Leg., ch. 283, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 9, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1058, § 16, eff. September
1, 2007.

§ 52.015. DIRECTIVE TO APPREHEND. (a) On the request
of a law-enforcement or probation officer, a juvenile court may
issue a directive to apprehend a child if the court finds there is
probable cause to take the child into custody under the provisions
of this title.
(b) On the issuance of a directive to apprehend, any
law-enforcement or probation officer shall take the child into
custody.
(c) An order under this section is not subject to appeal.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 16, eff. Jan. 1, 1996.

§ 52.0151. BENCH WARRANT; ATTACHMENT OF WITNESS IN
CUSTODY. (a) If a witness is in a placement in the custody of the
Texas Youth Commission, a juvenile secure detention facility, or a
juvenile secure correctional facility, the court may issue a bench
warrant or direct that an attachment issue to require a peace
officer or probation officer to secure custody of the person at the
placement and produce the person in court. Once the person is no
longer needed as a witness, the court shall order the peace officer
or probation officer to return the person to the placement from
which the person was released.
(b) The court may order that the person who is the witness be
detained in a certified juvenile detention facility if the person
is younger than 17 years of age. If the person is at least 17 years
of age, the court may order that the person be detained without bond
in an appropriate county facility for the detention of adults
accused of criminal offenses.

Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 949, § 10, eff. September 1,
2005.

§ 52.02. RELEASE OR DELIVERY TO COURT. (a) Except as
provided by Subsection (c), a person taking a child into custody,
without unnecessary delay and without first taking the child to any
place other than a juvenile processing office designated under
Section 52.025, shall do one of the following:
(1) release the child to a parent, guardian, custodian
of the child, or other responsible adult upon that person's promise
to bring the child before the juvenile court as requested by the
court;
(2) bring the child before the office or official
designated by the juvenile board if there is probable cause to
believe that the child engaged in delinquent conduct, conduct
indicating a need for supervision, or conduct that violates a
condition of probation imposed by the juvenile court;
(3) bring the child to a detention facility designated
by the juvenile board;
(4) bring the child to a secure detention facility as
provided by Section 51.12(j);
(5) bring the child to a medical facility if the child
is believed to suffer from a serious physical condition or illness
that requires prompt treatment;
(6) dispose of the case under Section 52.03; or
(7) if school is in session and the child is a student,
bring the child to the school campus to which the child is assigned
if the principal, the principal's designee, or a peace officer
assigned to the campus agrees to assume responsibility for the
child for the remainder of the school day.
(b) A person taking a child into custody shall promptly give
notice of the person's action and a statement of the reason for
taking the child into custody, to:
(1) the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; and
(2) the office or official designated by the juvenile
board.
(c) A person who takes a child into custody and who has
reasonable grounds to believe that the child has been operating a
motor vehicle in a public place while having any detectable amount
of alcohol in the child's system may, before complying with
Subsection (a):
(1) take the child to a place to obtain a specimen of
the child's breath or blood as provided by Chapter 724,
Transportation Code; and
(2) perform intoxilyzer processing and videotaping of
the child in an adult processing office of a law enforcement agency.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 51.09(a), a child taken into
custody as provided by Subsection (c) may submit to the taking of a
breath specimen or refuse to submit to the taking of a breath
specimen without the concurrence of an attorney, but only if the
request made of the child to give the specimen and the child's
response to that request is videotaped. A videotape made under this
subsection must be maintained until the disposition of any
proceeding against the child relating to the arrest is final and be
made available to an attorney representing the child during that
period.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 495, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1991; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1013, § 15, eff. Sept. 1, 1997;
Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1374, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts
1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 6.08, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999,
76th Leg., ch. 1477, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th
Leg., ch. 1297, § 12, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg.,
ch. 283, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 286, § 1, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 52.025. DESIGNATION OF JUVENILE PROCESSING OFFICE.
(a) The juvenile board may designate an office or a room, which may
be located in a police facility or sheriff's offices, as the
juvenile processing office for the temporary detention of a child
taken into custody under Section 52.01. The office may not be a cell
or holding facility used for detentions other than detentions under
this section. The juvenile board by written order may prescribe the
conditions of the designation and limit the activities that may
occur in the office during the temporary detention.
(b) A child may be detained in a juvenile processing office
only for:
(1) the return of the child to the custody of a person
under Section 52.02(a)(1);
(2) the completion of essential forms and records
required by the juvenile court or this title;
(3) the photographing and fingerprinting of the child
if otherwise authorized at the time of temporary detention by this
title;
(4) the issuance of warnings to the child as required
or permitted by this title; or
(5) the receipt of a statement by the child under
Section 51.095(a)(1), (2), (3), or (5).
(c) A child may not be left unattended in a juvenile
processing office and is entitled to be accompanied by the child's
parent, guardian, or other custodian or by the child's attorney.
(d) A child may not be detained in a juvenile processing
office for longer than six hours.

Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 495, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1086, § 48, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 13, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

§ 52.026. RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRANSPORTING JUVENILE
OFFENDERS. (a) It shall be the duty of the law enforcement
officer who has taken a child into custody to transport the child to
the appropriate detention facility or to the school campus to which
the child is assigned as provided by Section 52.02(a)(7) if the
child is not released to the parent, guardian, or custodian of the
child.
(b) If the juvenile detention facility is located outside
the county in which the child is taken into custody, it shall be the
duty of the law enforcement officer who has taken the child into
custody or, if authorized by the commissioners court of the county,
the sheriff of that county to transport the child to the appropriate
juvenile detention facility unless the child is:
(1) detained in a secure detention facility under
Section 51.12(j); or
(2) released to the parent, guardian, or custodian of
the child.
(c) On adoption of an order by the juvenile board and
approval of the juvenile board's order by record vote of the
commissioners court, it shall be the duty of the sheriff of the
county in which the child is taken into custody to transport the
child to and from all scheduled juvenile court proceedings and
appearances and other activities ordered by the juvenile court.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 411, § 1, eff. Aug. 30, 1993.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1374, § 3, eff. Sept. 1,
1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 6.09, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1082, § 1, eff. June 18, 1999.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 286, § 2, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 52.03. DISPOSITION WITHOUT REFERRAL TO COURT. (a) A
law-enforcement officer authorized by this title to take a child
into custody may dispose of the case of a child taken into custody
without referral to juvenile court, if:
(1) guidelines for such disposition have been adopted
by the juvenile board of the county in which the disposition is made
as required by Section 52.032;
(2) the disposition is authorized by the guidelines;
and
(3) the officer makes a written report of the officer's
disposition to the law-enforcement agency, identifying the child
and specifying the grounds for believing that the taking into
custody was authorized.
(b) No disposition authorized by this section may involve:
(1) keeping the child in law-enforcement custody; or
(2) requiring periodic reporting of the child to a
law-enforcement officer, law-enforcement agency, or other agency.
(c) A disposition authorized by this section may involve:
(1) referral of the child to an agency other than the
juvenile court;
(2) a brief conference with the child and his parent,
guardian, or custodian; or
(3) referral of the child and the child's parent,
guardian, or custodian for services under Section 264.302.
(d) Statistics indicating the number and kind of
dispositions made by a law-enforcement agency under the authority
of this section shall be reported at least annually to the office or
official designated by the juvenile board, as ordered by the board.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 18, eff. Jan. 1,
1996; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 48, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;
Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 15, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts
2003, 78th Leg., ch. 283, § 10, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

§ 52.031. FIRST OFFENDER PROGRAM. (a) A juvenile board
may establish a first offender program under this section for the
referral and disposition of children taken into custody for:
(1) conduct indicating a need for supervision; or
(2) delinquent conduct other than conduct that
constitutes:
(A) a felony of the first, second, or third
degree, an aggravated controlled substance felony, or a capital
felony; or
(B) a state jail felony or misdemeanor involving
violence to a person or the use or possession of a firearm, illegal
knife, or club, as those terms are defined by Section 46.01, Penal
Code, or a prohibited weapon, as described by Section 46.05, Penal
Code.
(b) Each juvenile board in the county in which a first
offender program is established shall designate one or more law
enforcement officers and agencies, which may be law enforcement
agencies, to process a child under the first offender program.
(c) The disposition of a child under the first offender
program may not take place until guidelines for the disposition
have been adopted by the juvenile board of the county in which the
disposition is made as required by Section 52.032.
(d) A law enforcement officer taking a child into custody
may refer the child to the law enforcement officer or agency
designated under Subsection (b) for disposition under the first
offender program and not refer the child to juvenile court only if:
(1) the child has not previously been adjudicated as
having engaged in delinquent conduct;
(2) the referral complies with guidelines for
disposition under Subsection (c); and
(3) the officer reports in writing the referral to the
agency, identifying the child and specifying the grounds for taking
the child into custody.
(e) A child referred for disposition under the first
offender program may not be detained in law enforcement custody.
(f) The parent, guardian, or other custodian of the child
must receive notice that the child has been referred for
disposition under the first offender program. The notice must:
(1) state the grounds for taking the child into
custody;
(2) identify the law enforcement officer or agency to
which the child was referred;
(3) briefly describe the nature of the program; and
(4) state that the child's failure to complete the
program will result in the child being referred to the juvenile
court.
(g) The child and the parent, guardian, or other custodian
of the child must consent to participation by the child in the first
offender program.
(h) Disposition under a first offender program may include:
(1) voluntary restitution by the child or the parent,
guardian, or other custodian of the child to the victim of the
conduct of the child;
(2) voluntary community service restitution by the
child;
(3) educational, vocational training, counseling, or
other rehabilitative services; and
(4) periodic reporting by the child to the law
enforcement officer or agency to which the child has been referred.
(i) The case of a child who successfully completes the first
offender program is closed and may not be referred to juvenile
court, unless the child is taken into custody under circumstances
described by Subsection (j)(3).
(j) The case of a child referred for disposition under the
first offender program shall be referred to juvenile court if:
(1) the child fails to complete the program;
(2) the child or the parent, guardian, or other
custodian of the child terminates the child's participation in the
program before the child completes it; or
(3) the child completes the program but is taken into
custody under Section 52.01 before the 90th day after the date the
child completes the program for conduct other than the conduct for
which the child was referred to the first offender program.
(k) A statement made by a child to a person giving advice or
supervision or participating in the first offender program may not
be used against the child in any proceeding under this title or any
criminal proceeding.
(l) The law enforcement agency must report to the juvenile
board in December of each year the following:
(1) the last known address of the child, including the
census tract;
(2) the gender and ethnicity of the child referred to
the program; and
(3) the offense committed by the child.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 19, eff. Jan. 1, 1996.
Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 48, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

§ 52.032. INFORMAL DISPOSITION GUIDELINES. The
juvenile board of each county, in cooperation with each law
enforcement agency in the county, shall adopt guidelines for the
disposition of a child under Section 52.03 or 52.031. The
guidelines adopted under this section shall not be considered
mandatory.

Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 48, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

§ 52.04. REFERRAL TO JUVENILE COURT; NOTICE TO
PARENTS. (a) The following shall accompany referral of a child or
a child's case to the office or official designated by the juvenile
board or be provided as quickly as possible after referral:
(1) all information in the possession of the person or
agency making the referral pertaining to the identity of the child
and the child's address, the name and address of the child's parent,
guardian, or custodian, the names and addresses of any witnesses,
and the child's present whereabouts;
(2) a complete statement of the circumstances of the
alleged delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for
supervision;
(3) when applicable, a complete statement of the
circumstances of taking the child into custody; and
(4) when referral is by an officer of a
law-enforcement agency, a complete statement of all prior contacts
with the child by officers of that law-enforcement agency.
(b) The office or official designated by the juvenile board
may refer the case to a law-enforcement agency for the purpose of
conducting an investigation to obtain necessary information.
(c) If the office of the prosecuting attorney is designated
by the juvenile court to conduct the preliminary investigation
under Section 53.01, the referring entity shall first transfer the
child's case to the juvenile probation department for statistical
reporting purposes only. On the creation of a statistical record or
file for the case, the probation department shall within three
business days forward the case to the prosecuting attorney for
review under Section 53.01.
(d) On referral of the case of a child who has not been taken
into custody to the office or official designated by the juvenile
board, the office or official designated by the juvenile board
shall promptly give notice of the referral and a statement of the
reason for the referral to the child's parent, guardian, or
custodian.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1460, ch. 544, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1091, § 1, eff. June 19,
1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 136, § 1, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001;
Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 16, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts
2003, 78th Leg., ch. 283, § 11, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

§ 52.041. REFERRAL OF CHILD TO JUVENILE COURT AFTER
EXPULSION. (a) A school district that expels a child shall refer
the child to juvenile court in the county in which the child
resides.
(b) The board of the school district or a person designated
by the board shall deliver a copy of the order expelling the student
and any other information required by Section 52.04 on or before the
second working day after the date of the expulsion hearing to the
authorized officer of the juvenile court.
(c) Within five working days of receipt of an expulsion
notice under this section by the office or official designated by
the juvenile board, a preliminary investigation and determination
shall be conducted as required by Section 53.01.
(d) The office or official designated by the juvenile board
shall within two working days notify the school district that
expelled the child if:
(1) a determination was made under Section 53.01 that
the person referred to juvenile court was not a child within the
meaning of this title;
(2) a determination was made that no probable cause
existed to believe the child engaged in delinquent conduct or
conduct indicating a need for supervision;
(3) no deferred prosecution or formal court
proceedings have been or will be initiated involving the child;
(4) the court or jury finds that the child did not
engage in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for
supervision and the case has been dismissed with prejudice; or
(5) the child was adjudicated but no disposition was
or will be ordered by the court.
(e) In any county where a juvenile justice alternative
education program is operated, no student shall be expelled without
written notification by the board of the school district or its
designated agent to the juvenile board's designated
representative. The notification shall be made not later than two
business days following the board's determination that the student
is to be expelled. Failure to timely notify the designated
representative of the juvenile board shall result in the child's
duty to continue attending the school district's educational
program, which shall be provided to that child until such time as
the notification to the juvenile board's designated representative
is properly made.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 262, § 20, eff. Jan. 1, 1996.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1015, § 16, eff. June 19,
1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1297, § 17, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Why is CCISD and FBISD jurisdiction conflicts..........

2008-06-13T08:04:00.000-07:00

The C.C.I.S.D. Taxpayers and the F.B.I.S.D. Taxpayers want to know why?????????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????

"Even if the father had participated in the underlying child in need of assistance proceedings, it is unlikely that the juvenile court would have.....

2008-06-13T07:55:00.000-07:00

http://www.caller.com/news/2008/jun/10/teen-cc-officer-involved-fight/