Mom on Trial - Leaves child in Car for minutes

[meandtheguys2]

OMGosh.

 

[NYBlue1]

If you look at the comments sections on the local news stories, you'll find that posters have PLENTY to say about the obnoxious Crestwood officers.

One person describes how an officer drove by and started YELLING at her that he was going to arrest her. She was out front of the shopping center talking on a cell phone. The cop wrongly thought apparently that the truck she was standing near in a fire zone was hers...it wasn't.

They shoot first, ask questions later there apparently.

People that get tickets or have bad encounters with the police, which usually means they have done something wrong to be getting involved with the police in the first place, generally dont like them and take great joy in painting them as villans.

Again how do you know the officer said he was going to arrest her, because she said so? Likely senerio she recieved a ticket for parking in a loading zone and now was going to make the officer pay for daring to do his job and ticket her.

OR

Just embelished the incident. Small towns mean more contact with the police mean more people POed they have recieved tickets ect.

 

[daisax]

From what I understand he is working he is just working the desk not heavy lifting, how is that double dipping

I shouldn't have used the term "double dipping" -- though I would call getting a job without heavy lifting because you claim you're disabled by lying about your other job as a police officer (he claimed he only worked desk duty) ethically challenged.

 

[KiKi Mouse]

If the mother was in full view of the car the entire time and it was just for a couple of minutes I don't have a problem with it.
However...
things can happen in a matter of minutes
This past fall a mom left her kids in the car while she went into the gas station to pay. I am not sure how long she was in there as I was not on duty at time. I would assume under five minutes.
During that time the 2 year old got herself out of the car seat and out of the car. Despite there being older kids in the car.
Mom goes to leave and runs over the little one killing her.

The next week a mother goes to the landfill site and then gets home and realizes her kid isn't in the vehicle. Somehow he got out and was alone at the landfill site for about an hour. Lucky for everyone he was not injured.

When I have the kids in the car I always pay at the pump or get full service.
I never run into a store and leave my kids out of site.
I'm not coming down on anybody...only those adults that do blatently stupid things like leaving their kid in the car for 30 minutes while they shop etc. Just trying to make the point that things can happen and do happen and it would be unfortunate if they happened to you.

 

[NYBlue1]

According to my read of the limited facts we have been presented, the officer made an error in judgment. I have never said he was corrupt, just that he misinterpreted the situation, and that he possibly confused his idea of bad parenting with something that was against the law.

As to how the scene unfolded, perhaps if the mother did not return to her vehicle to find an "angry officer," she might have been more cooperative. Perhaps it would not have gotten to the point if the officer had not blocked return to the vehicle, effectively cutting her off from her child. Perhaps it would not have gotten to that point had the officer not yelled at the mother in a tirade.

http://redeye.chicagotribune.com/red-031208-chicago-mom,0,1603569.story

I tell you what. If a police office blocked the way to my child and started screaming at me, you can bet your life I would not stand still and quiet. The least I would do is call DH on my cell and refuse to answer questions.

Denae

Big diffrence between the police and the security gaurd, there is a reason the security gaurd is not a police officer. In no story do I see any detailed info on the exchange between the real police and the woman.

 

[mickeyboat]

Big diffrence between the police and the security gaurd, there is a reason the security gaurd is not a police officer. In no story do I see any detailed info on the exchange between the real police and the woman.

So the community officer screams at me and refuses to let me get to my child. She calls her boyfriend police officer.

Yeah, I am going to just melt into a puddle of mush.

 

[NYBlue1]

"Bizarrely, while she was being arrested and transported to jail, the girls she had taken to the Salvation Army kettle were left alone in the parking lot and later found huddle on a bench inside Wahl-Mart, too terrified by the police officers to ask for help."

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/03/07/was-it-really-child-endangerment-in-illinois-parking-lot/

An earlier report stated that her husband responded to the scene and found his wife already in handcuffs, so the husband left his kids in walmart? Did he not wonder where his kids were? Did the mother not tell anybody her kids were there? The husband knew the kids were there cause of the phone call his wife made, how is this the police departments fault? Why were the girls by the kettle and the mother back at the car without them?

This is not adding up.

 

[NYBlue1]

So the community officer screams at me and refuses to let me get to my child. She calls her boyfriend police officer.

Yeah, I am going to just melt into a puddle of mush.

I would have asked that a real officer be called and explained the situation to the officer. This boyfriend nonsence has nothing to do with anything. The sgt was the supervisor of the shift, he responds to calls like this.

I dont get the puddle of mush thing

 

[mickeyboat]

An earlier report stated that her husband responded to the scene and found his wife already in handcuffs, so the husband left his kids in walmart? Did he not wonder where his kids were? Did the mother not tell anybody her kids were there? The husband knew the kids were there cause of the phone call his wife made, how is this the police departments fault? Why were the girls by the kettle and the mother back at the car without them?

This is not adding up.

I am guessing this is the time between when she was screamed at and arrested and when the husband got there. I would be willing to bet the husband found the girls in Wal-Mart.

And it would be the police department's fault because they detained their mother and prevented her from attending to them while not not providing any supervision.

 

[meandtheguys2]

I would have asked that a real officer be called and explained the situation to the officer. This boyfriend nonsence has nothing to do with anything. The sgt was the supervisor of the shift, he responds to calls like this.

I dont get the puddle of mush thing

Nothing personal, but I think that does affect the case. I know that if my husband called me and told me something was happening I would be predisposed to take his side. That is human nature.

 

[poohandwendy]

People that get tickets or have bad encounters with the police, which usually means they have done something wrong to be getting involved with the police in the first place, generally dont like them and take great joy in painting them as villans.

Again how do you know the officer said he was going to arrest her, because she said so? Likely senerio she recieved a ticket for parking in a loading zone and now was going to make the officer pay for daring to do his job and ticket her.

OR

Just embelished the incident. Small towns mean more contact with the police mean more people POed they have recieved tickets ect.

OR...there are some bad police officers in that town. It is possible, you know.

In this case, I think the officer jumped the gun when he should have just diffused the situation. I think the officer made a mistake, it was his job to come in and assess the situation professionally. I don't think he did so. I am sure the mother reacted unfavorably, I don't think most people would have reacted much differently.

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

The law does not say that.

Did you not read the rest of the thread? According to multiple sources, the law did state that a child under a certain age could not be left in a vehicle unsupervised for more than ten minutes. Go back and read. It's in this thread. Nobody else here is disputing the law, but the way it was enforced.

I am guessing this is the time between when she was screamed at and arrested and when the husband got there. I would be willing to bet the husband found the girls in Wal-Mart.

And it would be the police department's fault because they detained their mother and prevented her from attending to them while not not providing any supervision.

Again, we've already been through this. According to her husband, he arrived to find his wife in handcuffs. So, if the girls were left alone after the police had left, that would be the father's fault.

Are there corrupt police officers? Absolutely! Was this one corrupt? Maybe. Does that have anything to do with the fact that this woman broke the law, at least by some interpretations of it? Absolutely! Should she have been arrested? Maybe or maybe not.

 

[mickeyboat]

Did you not read the rest of the thread? According to multiple sources, the law did state that a child under a certain age could not be left in a vehicle unsupervised for more than ten minutes. Go back and read. It's in this thread. Nobody else here is disputing the law, but the way it was enforced.

Again, we've already been through this. According to her husband, he arrived to find his wife in handcuffs. So, if the girls were left alone after the police had left, that would be the father's fault.

Are there corrupt police officers? Absolutely! Was this one corrupt? Maybe. Does that have anything to do with the fact that this woman broke the law, at least by some interpretations of it? Absolutely! Should she have been arrested? Maybe or maybe not.

#1: Yes, I have read the thread. I have also done the research.

I am sure you did your research too, and found this:

In June 2002, a rebuttable presumption was added to the statute that any person who leaves a child six years of age or younger, unattended in a motor vehicle for more than ten minutes has committed a Class A misdemeanor.10 The statute further defines "unattended" as either not accompanied by someone fourteen years or older, or if accompanied by someone older than fourteen years the child must be within sight of that person[/B
The statute provides that a conviction is considered a Class A misdemeanor

http://www.dcba.org/brief/janissue/2004/northern0104.htm

What you did not find is this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/illinoisstatecases/sc/2006/99895.pdf

The 2002 statute to which you refer contains a mandatory rebuttable presumption which was found unconstitutional in 2006.

The media tends not to do all the legal research it should, either.

#2 If the mother was handcuffed before the father arrived, there would have been a certain amount of time where the mother was not caring for the other children and when the father arrived. Who was taking care of the other children then? It was the officer's duty to find someone to care for those children while the mother was detained.

#3: I do not think the cop was corrupt. I think he misjudged the situation and could have handled it a lot better.

Denae

 

[schnerk]

#2 If the mother was handcuffed before the father arrived, there would have been a certain amount of time where the mother was not caring for the other children and when the father arrived. Who was taking care of the other children then? It was the officer's duty to find someone to care for those children while the mother was detained.

#3: I do not think the cop was corrupt. I think he misjudged the situation and could have handled it a lot better.

Denae

Exactly!

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

The 2002 statute to which you refer contains a mandatory rebuttable presumption which was found unconstitutional in 2006.

The media tends not to do all the legal research it should, either.

#2 If the mother was handcuffed before the father arrived, there would have been a certain amount of time where the mother was not caring for the other children and when the father arrived. Who was taking care of the other children then? It was the officer's duty to find someone to care for those children while the mother was detained.

Since you've done all this research, maybe you can tell me precisely when the law was repealed? Whether or not it was found unconstitutional, it is still on the books. So, someone could be charged with it. It is up to the courts whether or not the person will be convicted. Are you saying a precedent has been set concerning this law? I haven't come across it, not that it has anything to do with arrest itself.

I have no idea who was or wasn't looking after the children. How could you or I possibly know that?

 

[mickeyboat]

Since you've done all this research, maybe you can tell me precisely when the law was repealed? Whether or not it was found unconstitutional, it is still on the books. So, someone could be charged with it. It is up to the courts whether or not the person will be convicted. Are you saying a precedent has been set concerning this law? I haven't come across it, not that it has anything to do with arrest itself.

I have no idea who was or wasn't looking after the children. How could you or I possibly know that?

#1: Your reference. The above link is to the actual court opinion. I can't access it anymore, so I copied and pasted from another source. The decision was handed down on 1/20/06. People v. Jordan

6. Child Endangerment: Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded: Mootness by termination of supervision; mandatory and permissive presumptions; mandatory rebuttable presumptions unconstitutional; Karmeier, J.

No. 99895 People v. Jordan Filed 01-20-06 (LJD)

Christopher Jordan, was charged in the circuit court of Cook County with endangering the life and health of a child in violation of section 12-21.6 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (the Code) (720 ILCS 5/12-21.6 (West 2002)). Following a bench trial, defendant was found guilty and was sentenced to three months' court supervision. He appealed, arguing that (1) the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the child's life or health was endangered by his actions and (2) the child endangerment statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutional. The appellate court held that the statute contained an unconstitutional presumption, which was severable, and the State's evidence was otherwise insufficient to prove defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the circuit court. 354 Ill. App. 3d 294. We allowed the State's petition for leave to appeal.

It is unconstitutional to use the 10 minute rule as a mandatory rebuttable presumption of guilt in a child endangerment case (as you were doing to support your theory that there was not question that a law was broken). Other facts and circumstances must support the finding of guilt.

"Did you not read the rest of the thread? According to multiple sources, the law did state that a child under a certain age could not be left in a vehicle unsupervised for more than ten minutes. Go back and read. It's in this thread. Nobody else here is disputing the law, but the way it was enforced."

(your post #332- see above)

My reply was that your interpretation is not the law. And I am right. Just because the law remains on the books does not make it enforceable if it is unconstitutional. It is why we have three branches of government.

#2 (from my post above)

"Bizarrely, while she was being arrested and transported to jail, the girls she had taken to the Salvation Army kettle were left alone in the parking lot and later found huddle on a bench inside Wal-Mart, too terrified by the police officers to ask for help."

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/03/07...s-parking-lot/

This link says the children were left alone in the parking lot and later found huddled on a bench. I don't know how more clear it could get.

Denae

 

[katerkat]

Uh, Denae, the only issue I have is using ParentDish as a source. I read the blog a lot and they are sometimes pretty bad about getting facts wrong and embellishing the stories. Is there a news report that says the children were left alone?

 

[Mr. & Mrs. Smith]

ParentDish? That's hardly a "source".

Also, I'm quite surprised that you don't realize the difference between a court precedent and a law. When a court rules a law to be unconstitutional, it sets a precedent. Therefore, when someone is charged under that law again and goes before the courts, they will likely get off because a precedent has been set. However, if the law isn't formally repealed, it can and will still be enforced. You seem to be suggesting that the police officer should have acted as a judiciary instead of an enforcer. There was nothing wrong with him charging her under that law in the terms of his role. Furthermore, the DA supported the charge.

 

[NYBlue1]

OR...there are some bad police officers in that town. It is possible, you know.

In this case, I think the officer jumped the gun when he should have just diffused the situation. I think the officer made a mistake, it was his job to come in and assess the situation professionally. I don't think he did so. I am sure the mother reacted unfavorably, I don't think most people would have reacted much differently.

You are correct, but as happens in pretty much all the police related threads that come on here its always the cops are bad, the cops used bad judgement , the cops are wrong, not all cops are good.

We still have no clear picture of what went on here, you have one mothers point of view and a blog , with a history of confusing facts to go by.

My point in this entire thread is, we dont know the whole story to be condeming the officer for his actions. Cases like these are very frequent and most end in the mother driving away with the kids, something else happened, we dont know what that something is. We have ONE side of a multisided story.

 

[poohandwendy]

You are correct, but as happens in pretty much all the police related threads that come on here its always the cops are bad, the cops used bad judgement , the cops are wrong, not all cops are good.

I wouldn't know. I usually tend to side with the cops in most cases.

My point in this entire thread is, we dont know the whole story to be condeming the officer for his actions. Cases like these are very frequent and most end in the mother driving away with the kids, something else happened, we dont know what that something is. We have ONE side of a multisided story.

I guess that works both ways. We don't know enough to condemn the mother either, yet she has been condemned here.

Going with what little we have, I have formed my opinion. It's a message board, not a jury. It's only a discussion based on what bits and pieces we have at our disposal. It would be quite boring if every topic required all angles represented and only facts known. We wouldn't have anything to discuss if those were the requirements. As it stands, we are taking a newsbit and commenting on what our general feelings are given the little information we have. I think it goes without saying that if other truths came to light, opinions would change.

If this were a jury, I would agree that it is important that we have all of the facts.