tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post759373579173498271..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Lies, police shootings, and the disinfecting sunlight of dashcam videoGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-83616611399347391092017-04-27T11:05:09.285-05:002017-04-27T11:05:09.285-05:00Another addendum to the above writer's comment...Another addendum to the above writer's comments about parole revocation hearings resulting in the decision to send violators to ISP or other temporary units of detention as a final decision rather than to revoke parole is considered by the Parole Board to be only a sanction. The board suggests rather than that being a temporary revocation of parole this "sanction" is considered by the board to be no more than an amended parole condition. It is not considered as a parole revocation. Nevertheless the results are that the parolee's limited liberty interest (which was established by the granting of parole) is terminated and he/she is removed to a detention facility for what could be up to a period of 6 months. Since the decision is not considered a revocation of parole, the parolee is denied the right to file an administrative appeal from the decision to go to jail for 6 months. The decision to place that parolee in a temporary detention facility is nonetheless a term of detention, and I personally find this rule offensive to the concept of Due Process since one's limited liberty interest is suspended by forced detention, with no ability to administratively appeal any errors which may be present arising from the revocation hearing which resulted in detention. Of course one might attack the decision in a court of law via habeas corpus, but such litigation would not likely be completed until long after the 6 months of detention has expired, thus the prospect that the habeas litigation would be dismissed as moot before a court could finally rule on any anticipated constitutional errors of due process alleged in the writ. <br /><br />Bill Habern<br />THE HABERN LAW FIRM<br />HOUSTON, TEXASBill Habernnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-33846390701899737192017-04-26T22:00:57.119-05:002017-04-26T22:00:57.119-05:00The Texas Rangers were also called to investigate ...The Texas Rangers were also called to investigate the APD crime lab in 2010 -- botched that one as well. What are they good for?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-6804001479259843682017-04-26T21:48:48.764-05:002017-04-26T21:48:48.764-05:00No doubt the Rangers conducted their investigation...No doubt the Rangers conducted their investigation and presented their findings to the DA. What more are they supposed to do? It has to go through grand jury and given that now 2 local elected officials are involved, this is where it starts going sideways. JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69600966190389545152017-04-26T11:33:59.924-05:002017-04-26T11:33:59.924-05:00No, parole doesn't revoke people, they just se...No, parole doesn't revoke people, they just send them to ISFs. Here's information from the Legislative Budget Board's January 2017 report on Recidivism and Revocation Rates:<br /><br />Three year rearrest rates:<br />ISFs – 59.2%<br />Prison – 46.4%<br />Parole Supervision – 44.2%<br />Probation Supervision – 35.9%<br /><br />It can be argued that sending offenders to an ISF makes them more likely to commit a crime than if they just went to prison. Now that's keeping the community safe, huh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-42013708111503380032017-04-26T06:12:17.063-05:002017-04-26T06:12:17.063-05:00HB 3234 (Moody) was heard this week in Govt Transp...HB 3234 (Moody) was heard this week in Govt Transparency and Operations and addresses open police records for deceased subjects. It needs a quick committee vote if it's going to become law this year. Consider calling the chair and/or the committee clerk and asking them to move it quickly.<br /><br />On the Rangers, I understand your concern but at least they released the video. Left to their own devices, Bell County never would have.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-79330619692656101712017-04-26T05:54:29.363-05:002017-04-26T05:54:29.363-05:00Thank you Gritz for keeping attention on the 4th ...Thank you Gritz for keeping attention on the 4th Amendment issue of police video in police shootings. There is no justification for keeping these videos away from journalists and concerned citizens and forcing them to only come to light after an expensive civil lawsuit forces the issue. <br /><br />Gritz, could there be any chance of this issue making it into legislation this year? Any advice on how to keep a spotlight on this?<br /><br />Also before we drop the topic: yes the officers lied but more importantly the sacred Texas Ranger investigation did not surface the discrepancy and almost certainly never got presented to the grand jury. Therefore represent the case to a grand jury. Perfectly legal. Also, these so called investigations should themselves be the subject of reform. They should be uniform across the state and should be the vehicle for dash cam release. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com