Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Texas uses the term “unwilling” in the statute for ages 14 through 17 years of age. This addresses part of the lure away issue and the boyfriend/girlfriend situation.
It is effective as a whole. There are always the in between circumstances. I prefer the vagueness in the statute wording to allow some flexibility.
We use a regional network that allows us to alert specific regions too. The 2 networks compliment each other very well for us.
Lyndsey,
Texas Region #2
Keep in mind Texas uses a Regional AMBER Alert Program but we utilize the same Amber Alert criteria as the State of Texas.
We use an internal form document for after action reviews for the following purpose.1. to make certain the required criteria/procedure has been followed
2. to identify any errors/mistakes/learning points
3. ensure we have operated at maximum efficiency
4. to encourage input and ideas from involved staff
5. to facilitate ownership/buy in from staff that do not fully understand how critical this type of event really is
6. to encourage the relationship/communication avenues between the involved agenciesRegards
John
Hello
I am a regional coordinator in Texas. Here is the Texas criteria from the Texas DPS web site.
The below represents AMBER Alert criteria for the state’s network:
Is this child 17 years of age or younger, whose whereabouts are unknown, and whose disappearance law enforcement has determined to be unwilling which poses a credible threat to the child’s safety and health; and if abducted by a parent or legal guardian, was the abduction in the course of an attempted murder or murder?
OR
Is this child 13 years of age or younger, who was taken (willingly or unwillingly) without permission from the care and custody of a parent or legal guardian by:
someone unrelated and more than three years older,
or
another parent or legal guardian who attempted or committed murder at the time of the abduction?
Is this child in immediate danger of sexual assault, death or serious bodily injury?
Has a preliminary investigation verified the abduction and eliminated alternative explanations for the child’s disappearance?
Is sufficient information available to disseminate to the public to help locate the child, a suspect, or the vehicle used in the abduction?26 years of training and experience: I believe AMBER Alerts are an investigative tool and should be only that. They are crucial to the successful recovery of abducted children as proven over the years. However, the timing of the AMBER Alert is also crucial and needs to be left to the discretion of the Law Enforcement Agency of jurisdiction. My experience is, that too much criteria and or mandatory requirements for anything we do as investigators creates another set of unnecessary obstacles and takes focus away from the priority. My opinion is this: there are too many dynamic and contributing factors present in each child abduction case to mandate an AMBER Alert or require a mandatory window of time to issue the AMBER Alert. I believe that time and as well as the other “should’s” are better suited for best practices. Keep it simple, flexible and usable. That’s my 2 cents and it may not be worth that!
Regards
John L. Graham
Joshua,
I like the concept of identifying the risk and threat levels, such as when executing a search or arrest warrant. However, an AMBER Alert is an effective investigative tool; the criteria for such should be protected from additional requirement/restriction and from being over used.
The criteria in Texas and Region #2:
1. Is this child 17 years of age or younger, whose whereabouts are unknown, and whose disappearance law enforcement has determined to be unwilling which poses a credible threat to the child’s safety and health; and if abducted by a parent or legal guardian, was the abduction in the course of an attempted murder or murder?
OR
Is this child 13 years of age or younger, who was taken (willingly or unwillingly) without permission from the care and custody of a parent or legal guardian by:
someone unrelated and more than three years older, or
another parent or legal guardian who attempted or committed murder at the time of the abduction?2. Is this child in immediate danger of sexual assault, death or serious bodily injury?
3. Has a preliminary investigation verified the abduction and eliminated alternative explanations for the child’s disappearance?
4. Is sufficient information available to disseminate to the public to help locate the child, a suspect, or the vehicle used in the abduction?
It has been my experience that many variables exist in child abduction cases; such as circumstances, subjective information, emotions and geographic locations. These variables make it difficult to develop an effective and comprehensive threat assessment tool for child abductions. My opinion is, abductions are too dynamic for additional requirements or criteria. The mere presence of these 4 requirements: 1. Child (17 and under or 13 and under), 2. Immediate risk of specific danger to the child, 3. Law Enforcement verification of child abduction and 4. sufficient information exists to help find the child, are simple and basic criteria that limit the subjective facts that often get imposed. The simpler the criteria, the easier it is to stay true to the criteria and purpose; therefore not every AMBER Alert request will be granted.
Regards
John L. Graham, ICAC Investigator, Texas Region #2 AMBER Alert Coordinator
Taylor County Sheriff’s Office, Abilene Texas
325-669-2992 cellTexas Region #2 Coordinator: This is a voluntary position on my part, in addition to my regular investigative case load. I am on call 24/7 and do not receive any compensation or compensatory time. Maybe so in a perfect world, but then if it was a perfect world there would be no need for the position.
John
As a Regional Coordinator Texas; I have not seen any specific legislative language regarding this topic. However; there is a high presence of Child Sex Trafficking and Children missing from Mexico that are in, or travel through Texas. A study this specific would be essential as we seem to keep learning new things the more we look. As always, we still run into the barrier of importance. I don’t hear this response but often see it before an incident occurs: It’s not that it’s not important, it’s just not important right now. Regards John L. Graham
