San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas
Email Email | Print Print --

December 18th, 2009
Police Blotter 12/16/09 will print updates of dropped charges or not guilty verdicts upon request. Send requests with appropriate documentation and working daytime phone number to or by fax to (512) 392-5132.

1:20 p.m. Dec. 16. Possession of controlled substance. 1001 Ranch Road 12. Tyler Harkins, 25, arrested.

7:46 p.m. Dec. 16. Theft (more than $50, Less than $500) 3939 South IH35. Desiree Lasha Watson, 19, arrested.

1o:43 p.m. Dec. 16. Traffic Instanter. Wavell Street/ Eisenhower Street. Roy Anthony Robinson, 45, arrested.

11:29 p.m. Dec. 16 Assault. 314 Saltillo Street. Sal David Torres, 23, arrested.

2:16 a.m. Dec. 17. Warrant Arrest. 1701 Hunter Road. Macario “Max” Suarez, 39, arrested.

Email Email | Print Print


0 thoughts on “Police Blotter 12/16/09

  1. What is a “Traffic Instanter”.
    When Googling the term, the only results that show up are in San Marcos. Is this a local term? If so, I would like a definition.

  2. Instanter is a Latin term meaning without delay or instantly. The term is used in various legal contexts, such as when a court issues an order for a writ of possession instanter, or an attorney files a motion requesting an action to be taken, and that the action be allowed immediately, among other examples.

    In the context of which you are inquiring (“Traffic Instanter”), it is the immediate legal process that an officer must “go through” in order to make an unplanned arrest, in the here and now, without a pre-existing warrant, and in this case, in connection with a traffic stop or violation.

    This practice of arrest for a traffic related violation is discouraged by many police departments, and it is the preferred policy rather, to handle most of those applicable matters with the issue of a citation, if at all possible.

    Within the guidelines of policy (Missouri City, Texas for example), the officer is in fact encouraged to take every measure to avoid making an arrest in relation to a traffic violation, to the point of allowing calls to friends, parents, etc. to arrive and lend assistance, if necessary.

    This is apparently not the case however, in San Marcos, judging from the frequency and number of arrests made here through the process of Traffic Instanter.

    Quite amazingly, Google does offer a seemingly disproportionate number of hits, with relation to the City of San Marcos and the term, Traffic Instanter.

  3. Traffic Instanters are often used to arrest drivers who have No DL and are uninsured. They are usually given the opportunity to find a licensed driver to drive them home. If they are unable to, they go to jail on the instanter. I don’t see that as a bad thing.

  4. Mr. Davis;

    I would have to say that any “hating” seems to emanate more from your general direction.

    I merely responded to Jake’s query, and appeal for clarification.

    If you or anyone else cares to Google “traffic instanter”, which I did with no mention of our city or additional terms, you will find that San Marcos turns up in about 50 percent of the early hits, which certainly surprised me.

    I don’t see that the ensuing arrests are necessarily a bad thing either, unless there is some top driven push and need to increase city revenues through our municipal courts.

    It is certainly more expensive to resolve a violation involving an arrest, rather than just paying a ticket (or getting it dismissed).

    With that in mind, I would have to say that if there is some erosion of our citizen liberties in San Marcos, because the city is strapped for cash, and needs additional revenue, and that this is being done through arrests and the courts (Judge Ross Allegro WAS fired and replaced, along with almost every other city department manager), when a traffic ticket would suffice, then yes, that would be a bad thing.

    IN my opinion, certainly the jury is still out on this, but there WAS a local church pastor here in San Marcos, whose son went to jail, merely for hot-rodding. That seemed strange to me, but I later heard the details of the story, and then it seemed even more strange.

    Perhaps someone else has heard of that incident as well, and could elaborate.

    Or maybe we just shouldn’t talk about it.

  5. What you call “Hot-rodding”, the Texas Transportation Code calls “Racing on Highway”. As defined below, it is a Class B misdemeanor which means it is not a “citeable” offense…meaning you go to jail.

    Yeah, I’m a little familar with that incident and the church pastor. I would only suggest to be very cautious with anything you hear coming from this particular pastor….

    § 545.420. RACING ON HIGHWAY. (a) A person may not
    participate in any manner in:
    (1) a race;
    (2) a vehicle speed competition or contest;
    (3) a drag race or acceleration contest;
    (4) a test of physical endurance of the operator of a
    vehicle; or
    (5) in connection with a drag race, an exhibition of
    vehicle speed or acceleration or to make a vehicle speed record.
    (b) In this section:
    (1) “Drag race” means the operation of:
    (A) two or more vehicles from a point side by side
    at accelerating speeds in a competitive attempt to outdistance each
    other; or
    (B) one or more vehicles over a common selected
    course, from the same place to the same place, for the purpose of
    comparing the relative speeds or power of acceleration of the
    vehicle or vehicles in a specified distance or time.
    (2) “Race” means the use of one or more vehicles in an
    attempt to:
    (A) outgain or outdistance another vehicle or
    prevent another vehicle from passing;
    (B) arrive at a given destination ahead of
    another vehicle or vehicles; or
    (C) test the physical stamina or endurance of an
    operator over a long-distance driving route.
    (c) [Blank]
    (d) Except as provided by Subsections (e)-(h), an offense
    under Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor.

  6. “Yeah, I’m a little familar with that incident and the church pastor. I would only suggest to be very cautious with anything you hear coming from this particular pastor….”

    Yes, and why would that be?

  7. I knew the term “traffic instanter” was unfamiliar to me. I didn’t realize that San Marcos appears to account for most of them. Possibly other jurisdictions use a different terminology?

    Anyway, I have noticed that there are a lot of these appearing on the blotter. My assumption was always that it was related to our student population – DWIs, driving without a license, etc.

  8. Is the blotter published all the reported crimes of the day, or only the arrests? If it is only arrests, what is the point of having a blotter if we are not sure what happened in our neighborhood i.e. burglary, robbery etc?. Who gives out the blotter? Is it the police, or does a reporter actually investigate?

  9. Seen it All Now;

    “Yes, and why would that be?”

    It certainly deserves an answer, based on your statement, would you not agree?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *