Page 1 of 9

Cuffed & Stuffed Police Report

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 5:43 pm
by handog
I have received the police report and the voluntary statement from the 911 call which seem to contradict each other. Since it is public record I don't mind sharing the pertinent parts.

Voluntary statement:

I was sitting 4 seats behind the man when he got up and walked to the help counter. He reached into his back pocket for his wallet, lifted his shirt and I saw a black handgun tucked into his pants. I feared for my and my Sons life and ran to my car & called 911. (female handwriting)

Complaint by arresting officer Nick Atkinson, Round Rock PD:

Since displaying a firearm in public is considered a breach of the peace, and the Defendant intentionally failed to conceal his handgun, I placed him under arrest for Unlawful carry of a weapon by a License Holder.

handog:

The 911 caller describes an accidental failure to conceal yet the report from the LEO describes an intentional Failure. :headscratch

Does anyone else find it disturbing that a LEO can slip the word intentional into a report to make an arrest without the evidence to back it up?

Page 6:

** PRINTED WHILE EVENT IN PROGRESS**
WARNING- THE FOLLOWING IS A TCIC CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSE. THE EXISTANCE OF THIS RECORD IS AN INDICATOR THAT THE SUBJECT HAS BEEN LICENSED TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN UNDER TEXAS LAW AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED.

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed update

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:01 pm
by Humanphibian
wonder what was typed into his (the Officer's) terminal when the dispatch came through......If I had to Monday Morning QB a guess....it was a simple "person with a firearm" dispatch.

Are the computer generated dispatch records themselves available through a public records request?

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed update

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:14 pm
by G26ster
handog wrote: I feared for my and my Sons life and ran to my car & called 911.
I wonder who "ran" to the car? Just him, or both of them. Would be interesting to know.

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed update

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 6:32 pm
by davidtx
G26ster wrote:
handog wrote: I feared for my and my Sons life and ran to my car & called 911.
I wonder who "ran" to the car? Just him, or both of them. Would be interesting to know.
I wonder if it was a father & son or mother & son.

Its kind of sobering to understand that just the sight of a gun without any menacing behavior (based on callers report) can provoke this kind of panic.

BTW - it sounds a different home for the wallet might be in order.

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed update

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:20 pm
by witchdoctor575
I am always very careful when pulling out my wallet for the very reason posted. I don't want to scare the sheeple.

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed update

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:31 pm
by davidtx
I started carrying mine in the left front pocket after getting pick-pocketed in a Paris subway 20 years ago. Its a heck of a lot more comfortable if you have to sit a lot.

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed update

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:34 pm
by Beiruty
A Judge would dismiss this case when he hears the statement. Anyone who reads said statement, would conclude that the un-concealing is unintentional. That guy was simply reaching for his wallet and he had no clue of the frightened guy in the back.

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed update

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 9:19 pm
by C-dub
davidtx wrote:I started carrying mine in the left front pocket after getting pick-pocketed in a Paris subway 20 years ago. Its a heck of a lot more comfortable if you have to sit a lot.
:iagree:
I've been carrying my wallet and phone in the front pockets whenever carrying with an overshirt for just those reasons. It is also easier to get to when going through drive-thru's. The wallet that is.

I may have forgotten, but since you're gathering this information are you taking this anywhere Handog?

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed update

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:51 pm
by srothstein
handog wrote:Does anyone else find it disturbing that a LEO can slip the word intentional into a report to make an arrest without the evidence to back it up?
Well, yes and no. I find it disturbing from a personal point of view. I find it appalling from a professional point of view. Not that it would be put int the report without evidence, but that it would be put in the report with explicitly contrary evidence.

Lots of things go in police reports, and evidence is not mandatory. The purpose of a police report is not to prove anything. The primary purpose is to provide the officer who wrote the report with enough information to remember the event at some later time and be able to testify to it and explain it. The evidence gets logged in separately, as shown by the witness statement you received.

A secondary purpose, though almost as important, is to show the people reviewing the report that the officer acted reasonably, had probable cause, and met the elements of the offense. The people reviewing the report include the officer's supervisors, the prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, and the judge or judges involved. But this is also where a lot of officers go wrong. They get in the habit of writing their reports using certain words and phrases and add them in without actually doing what they said or having the evidence for what is said. For example, a standard burglary report is that a person(s) unknown, entered the property without the owner's permission and stole the listed items. You write so many, with no real hope of ever solving the crime, that the report contains no information but has exactly what is needed if someone gets lucky and finds the burglar.

One possible scenario for this case is that the officer made the arrest, then was checking the penal code for the elements as he wrote the report. Rather than admit he was wrong (or even realize it), he put the words in the report to meet the elements. I don't know if that is what happened but it si one possible scenario.

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed update

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:31 pm
by Kevinf2349
davidtx wrote:I started carrying mine in the left front pocket after getting pick-pocketed in a Paris subway 20 years ago. Its a heck of a lot more comfortable if you have to sit a lot.
:iagree: and if you are going to get pickpocketed you may as well get some enjoyment out of it! "rlol"

The 'unintentional' reveal is something I worry about a lot less since I got my CB SuperTuck but before I got that I was totally paranoid. As time goes by I do find myself worrying less but I hope I never get to the point where I slip into apathy about it. I find it interesting that the person (or persons) that ran to their cars didn't think to warn anyone else! :headscratch

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed update

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:56 pm
by JNMAR
Yes I do find it disturbing, handog...though not all that surprising. And I find it equally disturbing that the fool made the 911 call in the first place, perhaps he/she needs to spend a compensatory sober Saturday night in the drunk tank. That'll give him a clearer understanding of what fear is.

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed Police Report

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 4:10 pm
by tacticool
handog wrote:Page 6
Can you post the whole thing? Maybe scan the pages and post as pdf or images.

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed Police Report

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 4:35 pm
by ELB
Yes,if all the evidence they had was the witness statement, the fact that the cops went forward with this and claimed that you intentionally failed to conceal is an integrity failure on their part. I certainly would be mad enough to at least file a formal complaint with the mayor/city manager against each of the officers involved. It won't result in any disciplinary action against them now, but it will start putting...or adding... paper to their files, and a history of bogus arrests may develop to help weed out the uneducated down the road.

If you are really gung ho, many cities/towns have a police merit board or some other sort of civilian oversight agency. Seek a position on it.

If the DA is an elected position, ...............UPDATE: I found the other post, and now realize the County DA rejected the charges. I was under the impression this went to court, but I guess not. Good.

I do wonder -- what town/city/county was this?

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed Police Report

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 4:54 pm
by gigag04
That reads like a "public narrative" side of the report...where all you do is describe the elements of the offense. It is not the actual step by step series of events as they took place.

There should be a non-public side, which will most likely consist of the officer's probable cause statement. The public side is what newspapers get for the daily updates.

Re: Cuffed & Stuffed Police Report

Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:10 pm
by handog
gigag04 wrote:That reads like a "public narrative" side of the report...where all you do is describe the elements of the offense. It is not the actual step by step series of events as they took place.

There should be a non-public side, which will most likely consist of the officer's probable cause statement. The public side is what newspapers get for the daily updates.
It's all public record as you know. I'm not going to scan and post 18 pages of a step by step report that describes two people minding their own business. :yawn Anyone can contact Records at the RRPD and request a copy. You will see there is nothing pertinent that I have left out. In fact if you can find anything in the report that justifies my arrest I will buy you a steak dinner. You can send me the bill. ;-)