Why was alleged Tech shooter not searched, handcuffed?

Pratt on Texas - copyright Pratt on Texas all rights reservedIt appears that Hollis Alvin James Reid Daniels, III of Seguin, a.k.a. Reid Daniels or Hollis Daniels, has at least indirectly confessed to the murder of Texas Tech police Officer Floyd East, Jr.

Nothing in our power can bring Officer East back to life for his family, friends, and co-workers but, we should not let our heartache steer us away from examining what happened with an eye toward something similar never happening again.

According to reports Daniels was found amidst evidence of criminal behavior related to drugs and was taken into police custody. However, it appears that despite the fact that he already had a previous arrest on the Texas Tech campus for a drug related offence in September of last year, Daniels was not searched for a weapon nor was he handcuffed.

Was Daniels placed under arrest on a drugs related charge when he was taken into custody? If so, then why was he not searched and cuffed? If he was searched and a weapon missed, still why was he not cuffed until being placed in a secure area?

Let’s hope that an official soft policy on drug law enforcement at Texas Tech is not behind those caught being treated to a version of a trip to the principal’s office as if they’d been nabbed breaking a rule and not law.

Initial reports stated that Daniels was taken to the police station for a “standard debriefing.” What is that? It certainly isn’t a standard use of the term debrief and nothing I have seen in a police press release before.

In Texas we have local jurisdictions across the state deciding upon their own not to treat drug possession as a serious crime, despite the law, and choosing to no longer arrest those caught with small amounts but instead issue them a ticket.

Let us hope that an official soft policy on drug law enforcement at Texas Tech is not behind those caught being treated to a version of a trip to the principal’s office as if they’d been nabbed breaking a rule and not law.

If we do find such, we now know beyond speculation that such policy puts the lives of police officers, as well as students, faculty, and staff, in jeopardy.

Update, see: Campus cops were told student may have weapon even worse: Gunshot heard from TTU dorm room hours before fatal shooting; worse yet: Daniels removed the Springfield XD 45 caliber pistol from his pants and executed Officer East 


  1. Terry Hadaway says:

    Seems to me that this is a case of campus police having succomb to PC culture and treating students, even those engaged in criminal activity, as precious little snowflakes.

  2. bob horton says:

    Robert — You raised a point which had occurred to me? Why was Daniel NOT handcuffed when he was taken in for questioning? What was he not searched?

  3. Pratt on Texas says:

    This is from one of our long time Listener Club members with a badge:

    Robert, I fear that what Thomas said about the way police work is done on college campuses is correct**. I can see the (probably unwritten but strictly enforced) policy of allowing arrestees maximum freedom even after arrest for a serious offense. I also see a lack of training and continued mentoring that should have taken place. This officer was hardly ready to be out on his own totally unsupervised by seasoned officers. He had been with the department for quite some time, but not as a police officer. A pat-down reveals a lot of contraband, but a more thorough search is in order once a person is taken into custody. He should be cuffed and/or under the watchful eye of more than one officer until he is booked into jail. As a young officer myself, I accepted a prisoner from my Sergeant who was supposed to have been clean. I got him to jail and as he was being stripped, he pulled a tiny revolver out of the top of his boot. Lesson here: the officer does his own searching of the prisoner and does not accept that it already been done, even by his supervisor. I had no respect for that supervisor after the incident.

    Thomas original comment on facebook:

    Something to ponder: The University and the heads of the University, when it comes to the University Police Department, function as and can be likened to a city and a city council. Many city councils/mayors/city managers often try to stick their nose in the day to day operations of the police department with a HUGE slant toward both the unreasonable and unsafe- expecting things or demanding procedures that are violations of conventional police practices. This could range from “aggressively patrol a certain part of the population or part of town, or “enforce the law but don’t enforce it “too much” or during large money-making events.” Is that the case here? I don’t know because I’m not involved with anything at Texas
    Tech. Tech administrators are about image, donors, parents, alumni. People pay a lot of money to send little Susie and Billy to Texas Tech. Could that put pressure on the university PD to react and police in a less than “normal” police manner? It’s worth asking and only those who work there can answer that question.

  4. Pratt on Texas says:

    Listener Club member writes:

    These police are being very ambiguous with their story and they need to be called on it. The latest report that I’ve heard, which came out early yesterday, says that the perpetrator was searched but “was able to gain access to a weapon”. In other reports they refer to the weapon as stolen. There are two big ambiguities. When and where did he “gain access” to the weapon? When, where, and who was the weapon “stolen” from? If he was searched and they missed a .45, then we have a training and environment problem. If he “gained access” to a weapon AT the PD, we have an even bigger problem! Further, if he “gained access” to a weapon at the PD that had ALREADY been reported stolen, we have a nightmare. Obviously the third option is terribly unlikely, but their distinct lack of clarity in reporting leaves so much room for interpretation that it’s utterly ridiculous, and I don’t think their lack of clarity is without intent. They’re embarrassed by something, they’re hiding it, and you’re just about the only person calling them on it. I wish someone conducting interviews would call them on it!

What do you think?...

© Pratt on Texas / Perstruo Texas, Inc.