"(CNN) -- Three police cars pulled into Christina FourHorn's front yard one afternoon just before she was supposed to pick up her daughter at school. The officers had a warrant for her arrest.

That was the first paragraph in your OP article. So...yes there was a warrant that the cops were executing.

My point of the warrant was not to assume something. We don't know if the wrong info was provided to the cops or if the cops misread the info

there's a police report isn't there? then, who was the judge or the agency? how du u find that out?

Not sure Duffy. I don't know if all of that is public record or not.

But brings up another question....how else would the CO cops know that there was a woman wanted in OK with a similar name unless they were told she was in CO, whether OK told them or whatever? Cops will search for warrants if they pull someone over or if there is a problem already, but not just out of the blue. Not to mention there was a warrant issued. I don't know if OK notified CO or if the CO judges issued the warrant

Did they say they had a warrant at the time of the arrest? Did Mrs. Fourhorn read said warrant with her attorney present? Or did the cops just say they had a warrant? Did they have it then, or did they produce it later, and why was she left in jail for 5 days? If it indeed is true that the warrant was valid and issued lawfully, then in this case, the judge who issued the warrant should be held responsible, I will concede that.

well i think that if u have a warrant in cali, wa state knows about it. because of an international data base. i am not a criminal justice major, nor do i know about this matter. i am guessing.

however, i do know that the cops can find out if u have been in jail, pdq...and if there is an outstanding warrant, that means money to them, so away they go 2 find ju. same name or something close.

and they might do surveillance, and it might not be legal.

You also bring up the interpretation issue, maybe there was a warrant but the cops "misread" it as you say. They were issued a directive but they were not careful and deliberate in following the directive.

It indicates to me that they had a warrant at the time of the arrest. How else would they have known to arrest her?

Also, when cops make an arrest they are given a Miranda.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?

They have a right to an attorney when being questioned, not at the arrest. They aren't going to sit there until an attorney can show up for them to be arrested.

I am saying that your knee jerk reaction was to blame the cops and talk about how bad they are, when in fact, you don't know all of the facts. I think that is what TJN was trying to say too.

again you are assuming. They could have been following the info to a T and the information given to them was wrong. They could have read the information wrong.....

YOU DON'T KNOW. That is my point in all of this. You assume that the cops are bad and they were wrong, but you really don't know what happened or what information was given to them.

okay so who gave them the information and they read it wrong? um i don't think the cops read anything wrong these days.

Yellow, I have a warrant for your arrest. Now are you going to question me on why you're being arrested? Are you going to ask to see this warrant? Are you going to call your attorney as soon as possible and get representation in this bald-faced lie of an accusation before the cops turn the screws on you? Most of the time, you will not be Mirandized until you are already arrested and shackled and placed in a holding cell by the police. Not before, as Law and Order would have you believe. This woman was blind-sided, no warning, and she was ripped away from the free life she was enjoying. How can you not feel compassion for what this woman went through? Did the police really "know" all of the facts in carrying out their directive on the warrant? Or did they just assume that Christina "might" be the suspect they were looking for?

cops do read things wrong at times. It happens...whether because they are human and make mistakes or in some cases because they are bad cops. It happens, but I don't assume things that aren't there.

Is explains a warrant:

Sponsored links
Net Detective¨-Since 1996
Official Site. Find Out Anything On Anyone. Satisfaction Guaranteed.
NetDetective.net/Warrant_Records
Lookup Arrest Warrants ?
Lookup Free Arrest Warrants On Anyone Right Now! Official Service
ArrestWarrants.GovArrestRecords.com
warrant
$29.99 Download Template Now Professional & Quality Template
www.DigitalWorkTools.com
A written order issued by a judicial officer or other authorized person commanding a law enforce ment officer to perform some act incident to the administration of justice.

Warrants are recognized in many different forms and for a variety of purposes in the law. Most commonly, police use warrants as the basis to arrest a suspect and to conduct a search of property for evidence of a crime. Warrants are also used to bring persons to court who have ignored a subpoena or a court appearance. In another context, warrants may be issued to collect taxes or to pay out money.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon Probable Cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." There are three principal types of criminal warrants: arrest warrants, search war rants, and bench warrants.

An arrest warrant is a written order issued by a judge or other proper judicial officer, upon probable cause, directing a law enforcement officer to arrest a particular person. An arrest warrant is issued on the basis of a sworn com plaint charging that the accused person has committed a crime. The arrest warrant must identify the person to be arrested by name or other unique characteristics and must describe the crime. When a warrant for arrest does not identify a person by name, it is sometimes called a "John Doe warrant" or a "no name warrant."

A Search Warrant is an order in writing, issued by a judge or judicial officer, commanding a law enforcement officer to search a specified person or premises for specified property and to bring it before the judicial authority named in the warrant. Before issuing the search warrant, the judicial officer must determine whether there is probable cause to search based on the information supplied in an Affidavit by a law enforcement officer or other person. Generally the types of property for which a search warrant may be issued, as specified in statutes or rules of court, are weapons, contraband, fruits of crimes, instrumentalities of crimes (for example, a mask used in a Robbery), and other evidence of crime.

A bench warrant is initiated by and issued from the bench or court directing a law enforcement officer to bring a specified person before the court. A bench warrant is used, among other purposes, when a person has failed to appear in response to a subpoena, summons, or citation. It is also used when an accused person needs to be transferred from jail to court for trial, and when a person's failure to obey a court order puts her or him in Contempt of court. A bench warrant is sometimes called a "capias" or an "alias warrant."

Warrants may be used for financial transactions. For example, a private individual may draw up a warrant authorizing another person to pay out or deliver a sum of money or something else of value.

A warrant may be issued to a collector of taxes, empowering him or her to collect taxes as itemized on the assessment role and to enforce the assessments by tax sales where necessary.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/warrant

They are supposed to show the warrant. Does it says they didn't show it to her? If so, then I missed that part. Warrants come from the COURTS.

As far as the Miranda, cops are supposed to read them while they are making the arrest. Why do you think cases are thrown out of court if it's not done at that time?

They had a warrant....plain and simple. Now whether they read it wrong or the courts were wrong....no one knows. But I won't assume one way or another. You are assuming a great deal where there aren't facts to back it up.

You want to get real, lets get real. As an organization, the police are corrupt and lacking in ethical standards. Yes, there are good cops, we know this, but the organization as a whole has not maintained its integrity. And that is why there are those like myself and so many others have a bias against the police, and a few judges and DA's. There is a rush to judgement without gathering sufficient evidence to make an arrest to hold up in court. Before you arrest someone, think of how the evidence will be presented in court. Don't make snap, jumpy decisions.

so what if it was the correct woman? If that woman says they have the wrong person, should the cops take her word for it? No....not the cops job. The person has the right to an attorney before questioning not before being arrested. The attorneys are expected to say they have the wrong person and the courts decide guilt or innocent, not the cops.

You actually think that? The cops can Mirandize you anytime they want, not just at the time of your arrest. They can do it long after, and you've been in a holding cell for 3 hours. They can press charges long after the time they believe you comitted a crime. Yes, we know warrants come from the courts, but there's this middleman called the Police, and how they execute such a warrant. And some will lie and say they have a warrant, and all along they never did, or they say they have grounds for a warrantless arrest. Why should a case go to trial if the evidence against the accused was so flimsy and coincidental?

hahahahaha
someone said the police r what?
um u better hide cause they will be looking 4 u next.

Poor Christina went to jail for 5 days and had to bond out and hire an attorney! None of this should have ever happened.

I've been real this whole time. I don't hold all responsible of anything for a few. I don't like to generalize. I disagree with you about the organization as a whole. With the press the way it is now, the PD doesn't want a bad rep and look bad so they are cracking down even more. How do I know this? My step dad is a retired Ft Worth cop and many friends are cops. As well as my son is getting his degree to be a cop. Not to mention, the few bad cops that give the good cops a bad name and people generalizing and lumping them all together makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs. Because of the hatred of cops and generalizing....the good cops can get shot for pulling someone over for a speeding ticket. This is why the cops have to be more aware and makes the jobs harder.

You want the cops to make judgments that the courts are supposed to do. That is giving them the power to be judge, jury and executioner. No thank you.

They were given a warrant to arrest this woman (they needed a warrant to arrest her for this particular incident, so yes they had it before) The wrong woman was arrested. I agree that she should be compensated, but I'm not going to place blame on people without the facts. I won't make snappy decisions without the facts.

Miranda rights (Miranda rule, Miranda warning) n. the requirement set by the U. S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Alabama (1966) that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: "the right to remain silent, the right to legal counsel, and the right to be told that anything he/she says can be used in court against" him/her. Further, if the accused person confesses to the authorities, the prosecution must prove to the judge that the defendant was informed of them and knowingly waived those rights, before the confession can be introduced in the defendant's criminal trial. The warnings are known as "Miranda Rights" or just "rights." The Miranda rule supposedly prevents self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Sometimes there is a question of admissibility of answers to questions made by the defendant before he/she was considered a prime suspect, raising a factual issue as to what is a prime suspect and when does a person become such a suspect?

reread my posts. I NEVER said she shouldn't be compensated or that she should even suck it up.

this is the problem with assuming things