Tampilkan postingan dengan label Montgomery County. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Montgomery County. Tampilkan semua postingan

Selasa, 06 Maret 2012

Montgomery Sheriff crashes drone into SWAT vehicle

One of the first civilian law enforcement agencies in the country to purchase an aerial surveillance drones last fall, the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office yesterday crashed a drone into one of its SWAT team's armored personnel carriers during a practice run. (Please let there be video!) Further, it wasn't just surveillance equipment crashing into the SWAT vehicle which IT World reports was "being loaded with weapons and ammunition for a training exercise."

Notably, DPS at one point was using unarmed drones both along the border and elsewhere in the state, but according to the Electronic Frontier Founation DPS recently canceled its drone program because of maintenance issues with the high-tech craft. (I'd not seen that widely reported.) DPS shut down its program, they told EFF, because, "drones did not offer Texas significant advantages over the agency’s existing airplanes and helicopters."

Despite costs and crashes, though, the Obama Administration is pushing ahead to approve drone use by many more civilian agencies on US soil by this summer, reports IT World:
Expensive, crash prone or not, unmanned aerial vehicles will become far more common in the U.S. following legislation signed by President Obama ordering the FAA to approve more UAVs for law enforcement and fire/emergency uses beginning in 90 days.

The FAA has restricted use of drones domestically due to concerns that UAVs flown by untrained operators would become a hazard to other aircraft and danger to people on the ground.

The Obama order gives the FAA until Sept. 30, 2015 to make legal drones that are lighter than 4.4 pounds and fly lower than 400 feet.

They won't just be for police, though. The legislation doesn't limit the uses for which its drones can be used, which will almost certainly make life much easier for paparazzi, stalkative exes and hordes of the intrusive, nosy and curious.

It will also make life much less private for a population struggling with the loss of privacy online and, very possibly, not yet ready to give it up in their backyards to crash-prone, high-maintenance r/c helicopters that may be relatives of the Predators and GlobalHawks of the world, but without the reliability, trained operators and reason for poking their noses into someone else's business in the first place.
If the Congress and the Obama Administration are pushing drones, might a Texas Legislature that last year battled the TSA over intrusive personal searches decide to regulate them, and if so would they have any authority to do so? For that matter, do cities have authority to regulate low-flying commercial drones, or is that strictly an FAA responsibility? ¿Quien sabe?

We seem to be at a "leap before you look" moment regarding drone technology. I'm sure there are benefits, but it looks like we'll be finding out the detriments the hard way.

Minggu, 29 Januari 2012

Montgomery County seeks to reduce jail costs from mentally ill

The Conroe Courier yesterday had the story of a new mental health docket in Montgomery County (using "managed assigned counsel," whatever that means) created with a grant from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission aimed at diverting mentallly ill defendants from the jail:
In the past few days, the county launched its managed assigned counsel program for indigent defendants to focus on representing defendants with mental health issues. Sara Forlano, a former assistant county attorney for Montgomery County, recently left private practice to start up the new program.

The county also will have a mental health court docket to closely monitor probationers with serious mental illness, according to a press release. The programs were created through a $487,000 grant from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission, and supported by matching funds from the county.

The managed assigned counsel would work with an oversight board, whose members commissioners approved in February.

“The goal of this program is to lower the rate of recidivism,” Judge Cara Wood, of the 284th state District Court, stated in the release. “There is a high rate of recidivism among this population.”

Williamson County saved $3.2 million from 2005-08 through reduced jail bookings and necessary medications in jail, while Bexar County has saved “at least” an estimated $5 million annually through a similar program, Wood previously told commissioners.

“We anticipate the same or similar savings to our county,” she said in February. “And we never want to lose sight that it’s the right thing to do.”

Wood previously said approximately 600 indigent defendants would be served by the program.
The cost to house a mentally ill person in jail is about $55,000 per year, while the cost for a typical inmate is about $20,000 a year, she said.

Minggu, 15 Januari 2012

Feds nix grants subsidizing SHSU crime lab

Texas' newest crime lab, run by Sam Houston State University in Montgomery County, opened in 2010 with the promise of three years of federal startup funding. But after budget cuts associated with raising the debt ceiling, that funding dried up and the lab has had to nearly double some of its fees. Reported the Conroe Courier (Jan. 6):
The Sam Houston State University Regional Crime Lab, which is operated by the university’s College of Criminal Justice and located in The Woodlands, started taking evidence from five counties, including Montgomery, in November 2010. A $1.5 million federal grant got the lab up and running.
But those agencies using the lab had agreed to three years of federal funding, after which the lab would complete its transition to becoming self-sustaining through fees, said Assistant District Attorney Warren Diepraam, chief of the Vehicular Crimes Division for the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office.

Diepraam said District Attorney Brett Ligon and SHSU officials have asked U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, to help find additional federal funds to supplement the fees paid by agencies.

“We are hopeful some funding will be found,” Diepraam said.

Montgomery County supplied 86 percent of the lab’s business, and the lab was charging a $200 flat fee for all drug and alcohol tests, Diepraam said.

Now, with the cut in funding, the lab will charge agencies $386 for alcohol tests and $290 for drug toxicology tests used for driving while intoxicated cases.

From November 2010 to October 2011, the lab ran 1,034 drug toxicology tests and 900 of those were from Montgomery County, Diepraam said. During that same time period, the lab analyzed 4,335 controlled substance evidence items, with 86 percent of them coming from Montgomery County, according to a casework overview by the lab.

The Regional Crime Lab will continue to run the drug toxicology and blood-alcohol tests, but all controlled substance evidence tests now will be sent to the Texas Department of Public Safety lab in Austin.

The average length of time for the Regional Crime Lab to turn around controlled substance tests is about two weeks, while the DPS lab can take up to nine months because of the volume of cases it gets from across the state, Diepraam said.
So the the county can pay $290-$386 for testing at the lab and get results back in 2 weeks, or send the sample to DPS and have it done for free, but not see results for up to nine months.

Unaddressed in the story, though, are the costs of delay: If the defendant is unable to make bail, say, in a controlled substance case, that also tacks on thousands of dollars in additional jail costs while wating for tests to come back. When that happens, the overall cost-benefit analysis still favors using the local lab, even at the higher price. Problem is, different revenue streams pay for lab testing and the jail, with different elected officials managing each sliver of the process. So budget myopia may cause prosecutors to send out for testing, even if in the long run it costs Montgomery County more money.

Attorney Paul Kennedy at The Defense Rests adds an additional concern about a possible fix suggested by the local DA:
MoCo District Attorney Bret Ligon now wants to use the asset forfeiture fund to pay for the tests.

The problem, of course, is the increased incentive to seize property and file forfeiture actions against defendants. Forfeiture actions serve to tie up defendant's assets and make it that much harder to muster a defense against the state. You will also find out that the vast majority of defendants either default or negotiate settlements in which they receive just a portion of the value of the items seized. The asset forfeiture funds then become a private slush fund for whoever's running the DA's Office (just ask former MoCo DA Michael McDougal). Of course there's no telling where the property seized in Tenaha went.
For the reasons mentioned above, I understand why the DA would want to subsidize the lab. But I agree with Kennedy it's problematic to rely on asset forfeiture funds for any government entity's base budget. Back when Texas used grant money to prop up dozens of regional narcotics task forces around the state, many of those local entities used asset forfeiture funds to pay for local matching under their grants, leading to skewed enforcement priorities.

Grits' view: By the time you add in additional jail costs from delays, the county in most cases is still better off paying to process cases more quickly. Balking at a $300-$400 fee seems foolhardy when the result is $40-$50 per day extra jail costs for up to nine months. (The phrase "penny wise, pound foolish" comes to mind.) The criminal justice system is just that, a system, with a lot of moving parts, so one can never look at cost figures like this in isolation. It's common for "savings" in one part of the system to result in even greater costs elsewhere. So federal subsidies are nice, but if Texans want a massive criminal justice system that, at any point in time, supervises more than 3/4 million adults in prison, jail, on probation and on parole (roughly the population of Austin), then paying for ancillary services like crime labs is an unavoidable expense.

Kennedy suggested three takeaway lessons from the episode: "First, for entities involved in the criminal (in)justice system who rely upon government funds to operate - those funds will diminish or vanish at some point, even if the entity  is there to help the state. Second, the lab should have charged a more realistic rate for their services; the excess would allow for a "cushion" when the funding was cut or dropped. Third, no one gives a rat's ass about the people accused of committing a crime." That pretty much sums it up.

Sabtu, 29 Oktober 2011

Droning on in Montgomery County: Unmanned aircraft could be mounted with weapons

Must we? Really?

From Montgomery County, the headline of the Click2Houston story was "New police drone near Houston could carry weapons." "To be in on the ground floor of this is pretty exciting for us here in Montgomery County," Sheriff Tommy Gage said, reassuringly, adding "We're not going to use it to be invading somebody's privacy. It'll be used for situations we have with criminals." Got that? Move along. Nothing to see here. No, don't look up ...

How much you wanna bet this new technology spawns a new felony of some sort next session for shooting a paintball or throwing a rock at a police drone flying over your backyard? Do you remember the brilliant shot from the intro to The Wire where the kid hurls a rock at the surveillance camera, cracking the lens? Run this drone flying low in urban areas and you're going to get a little of that. Also, the headlines won't be so cheerful the first time the remote pilot crashes the thing or flies into a building or through the electrical wires.

Of course, DPS is already operating drones in border counties (and elsewhere in the state), as is the federal government. Several Texas jurisdictions have bandied the idea about, including larger Harris County to the south, but Montgomery County is the first to decide that the technology is worth the bang for the buck ($300K plus fuel and ground staffing). The Sheriff has said he won't use the drone for traffic enforcement, but that doesn't mean that he won't change his mind about that, or that the next guy won't.

The legal theory allowing them to fly over your house with a camera zooming in to snap your picture is that police aren't invading your privacy if they see something while in a "public space" - in this case public airspace flying over your house with a zoom lens - from a spot off your property where they don't need your permission to be. That makes it formally constitutional, I suppose, since existing Supreme Court precedents have failed in any meaningful way to apply 18th century privacy principles to 21st century technology. But just because Justices Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy (at least) would probably consider it constitutional doesn't make it any less creepy. The Legislature could and should regulate police drone use or even ban it except for certain, limited circumstances.

Whatever they do, I'd prefer the Lege decide on the front end, i.e., in 2013: Don't wait around for years like they did with red-light cameras, where dozens of jurisdictions adopted the technology before the Lege got around to creating rules to govern them. This technology isn't going away, so lawmakers should get out in front of the privacy issues surrounding its use by police agencies.

This appears to be a promo video for the model UAV purchased by the Montgomery County Sheriff:


Noisier than I'd expected, and rather unnerving for use in an urban setting, particularly if it were armed. I wonder what the rules would be regarding private use, e.g., by paparazzi or something?

Selasa, 11 Oktober 2011

Records of PD receiving COPS grant seized by DA, Texas Rangers

The other day Grits mentioned that the City of Patton Village - a small municipality of about 1,500 people in Montgomery Couunty - was one of just a handful of Texas jurisdictions to receive a federal COPS grant to hire a new police officer. (The grant pays for salaries and benefits for the officer for three years.) So I was interested to notice soon thereafter a story about the local DA's office and the Texas Rangers executing a search warrant and the Patton Village Police Department. Reported the East Montgomery County Observer (Oct. 6):
Representatives of the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office served a search warrant at Patton Village city buildings on Oct. 4 confiscating boxes of documents.

“We are executing search warrants on city buildings to collect various city records based on allegations of misappropriation of city funds,” said Phil Grant, head of the DA’s Public Integrity Unit.

Grant said he cannot comment on what city officials may be targeted in the investigation but noted that records are being searched both at city hall and the Patton Village Police Department.

“This will be ongoing for some time,” he said. “It will take several months for us to accurately review all the records we’re obtaining today.”

Grant said the seized papers will be submitted for forensic analysis. Officials primarily looked for business records to review them for possible illegal activity, he said.
A local TV station reported that, "While the police department continued its patrols Tuesday, the rest of the offices were shut down as the DA's office tries to answer the question of whether or not anyone there misused city funds."

I find it ironic that only five Texas PDs out of 149 requesting COPS grants received them, and almost immediately after they're announced one of the agencies has all its records seized by law enforcement investigating corruption charges. I'm not saying the two things are related: News reports about the raid on Patton Village institutions so far have been awfully vague. It's rather odd, though, for the town to be selected for a much-sought federal grant then see the town's records, including the police department, seized in an investigation over alleged misuse of funds.

Yesterday Grits argued that the proliferation of small police agencies creates problems and that the public would be best served by consolidating law enforcement agencies instead of expanding their number by an average of 15 per year. Examples like this only reinforce this blogger's view.

Sabtu, 23 Juli 2011

ANDY NOLEN MONTGOMERY COUNTY CRIMINAL LAWYER

Map of Montgomery County, Texas highlighting C...Image via Wikipedia
CONROE, TEXAS & MONTGOMERY COUNTY CRIMINAL LAWYERS

Attorney Andy Nolen, Texas Criminal Defense Attorney

The CONROE, Texas Criminal Defense Attorneys Andy Nolen and Associates have handled over 3000 cases and have a collective 39 years experience defending adults and  juveniles in criminal, juvenile, and family courts  in MONTGOMERY County and throughout the State of Texas.

CONROE, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Andy Nolen and Associates represent clients charged with  crimes in State and Federal courts in Houston, Galveston, Beaumont, Austin, San Antonio, Waco, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Tyler, Sherman, Del Rio, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Mc Allen, El Paso, Hempstead, Liberty, Richmond, Conroe, Angleton and all counties in Texas. The law firm of Nolen and Associates is located in Houston, Texas; however, the Attorneys at Nolen and Associates appear in all criminal, juvenile, and family courts in Texas.

MONTGOMERY County  Criminal Defense Attorneys  Andy Nolen and Associates have over 39 years collective experience representing persons accused of committing criminal violations of State and Federal law. Andy Nolen has had many hundreds of criminal cases dismissed.  Having your case dismissed is always the primary objective.

CONROE, Texas Criminal Attorney Andy Nolen treats every person they represent as if they were a friend and neighbor.   When you call, likely Andy Nolen will answer your call himself.  You will be dealing with Attorneys, not secretaries, assistants, or answering machines.

If we can be of any assistance, or you just want to talk about your situation, please call  Montgomery  County Criminal Defense Attorney Andy Nolen at 713-697-4373.

County Courts at Law

County Court at Law 1

Judge Dennis Watson

Atrium Building
210 West Davis
Conroe, Texas  77301
Phone: 936-539-7831
Fax: 936-538-8090
  • Court Coordinator Peggy Inglet
  • Court Reporter J. Renae Young
  • Bailiff Deputy Carles Webb
  • Probation Assistant Randi Easterling
  • Probation Liaison Christian Smith

County Court at Law 2

Judge Jerry Winfree

Atrium Building
210 West Davis
Conroe, Texas  77301
Phone: 936-539-7832
Fax: 936-788-8357

County Court at Law 3

Judge Mason Martin

Atrium Building
210 West Davis
Conroe, Texas  77301
Phone: 936-539-7973
Fax: 936-760-6942

County Court at Law 4

Judge Mary Ann Turner
Courthouse
301 N. Main
Conroe, Texas 77301
Phone: 936-538-8174
Fax: 936-760-6904
Staff
Court Coordinator Therese Pringle
Court Reporter Pam May
Probate Clerk Randi Easterling
Bailiff Lloyd Ranels
Probation Liason Reginald Hernandez

9th District Court

Judge Fred Edwards
9th District Court
Montgomery County Courthouse
301 North Main, Suite 110
Conroe, Texas 77301
Phone: 936-539-7866 Fax: 936-788-8381

221st District Court

Judge Suzanne Stovall
Montgomery County Courthouse
301 North Main
Conroe, Texas  77301
Phone Number: 936-539-7808
Fax Number: 936-788-8364

284th District Court

Judge Cara Wood

Montgomery County
Courthouse
300 North Main
Conroe, Texas  77301
Phone Number: 936-539-7861
Fax Number: 936-538-3572

359th District Court

Judge Kathleen Hamilton

Montgomery County
Courthouse
300 North Main
Conroe, Texas  77301
Phone Number: 936-539-7900
Fax Number: 936-538-8187

410th District Court

Judge K. Michael Mayes
Montgomery County Courthouse
301 North Main Conroe, Texas  77301
Phone: 936-539-7860 or 281-364-4200
Fax: 936-538-8160

District Attorney
Michael A. McDougal
207 W. Phillips, 2nd Floor
Conroe, Texas  77301
Phone: 936-539-7800
Fax: 936-760-6940

County Sheriffs office
Sheriff Tommy Gage
Contact Information:
Montgomery County Sheriff's Office
#1 Criminal Justice Drive, Conroe, Tx 77301
Emergencies - 911
Non-emergencies & General Info. - (936)760-5871 or (281)353-9791
Sheriff's Communications - (936)760-5800 or (281)353-9791 ext. 5800


ATTORNEY ANDY NOLEN, CONROE & MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT INFORMATION

Map of Montgomery County, Texas highlighting C...Image via Wikipedia