Dallas Cops Busted Four Cotton Bowl Ticket-Takers for Accepting Bribes During Texas-OU

Categories: Crime, Sports

RedRiverRivalryTickets.jpg
From left, Rochelle Cade, Michael Wesley, David Carolina, and Desmond Lewis
In the lead up to this weekend's UT-Oklahoma matchup, there was talk that dispirited Longhorns fans weren't all that interested in watching their team get pummeled by the heavily favored Sooners. The evidence? Tickets for the burnt-orange side of the stadium were going for a paltry $209 each on the resale market, less than two-thirds the price fetched for the crimson side.

Nevertheless, the Red River Rivalry managed to sell out for the 68th consecutive year, the Cotton Bowl was deluged with 92,000-plus college football partisans, and those fans who weren't lucky enough to score tickets either retired to their televisions or hatched plots to find an alternative way to get into the stadium.

Several of the latter found some friendly ticket-takers who, in exchange for a modest bribe, allowed them to slip inside a couple of hours before kickoff.

What those ticket-takers didn't know when they accepted the cash was that they were being paid by undercover Dallas cops, though they figured this out rather quickly once the handcuffs emerged.

The police busted four people on misdemeanor theft of service charges: David Carolina, 49; Rochelle Cade, 59; Darren Lewis, 19; and Michael Wesley, 22. All four remain in Dallas County jail.

Thanks no doubt to the heroic efforts of DPD to keep the ticketless rabble from the stands, the game itself passed without incident -- except, of course, for the massive beat-down UT put on OU. That was borderline criminal.

(Note: This post has been changed to remove the name of an undercover police officer.)

My Voice Nation Help
26 comments
dlewis14
dlewis14

thank you for all the support given. yes it was indeed entrapment, the dectective just walked up and put the money in my hands in the heat of the moment.  I never would have thought id be in jail because my job set me up. The sad part is the arrested four normal usual law abiding citizens. if not pressured into that situation we definitely would not be county jail inmates.


dlewis14
dlewis14

aye its Darren Lewis of the highly racially profiled CB4 group.now that im am out on bond i would love to share the whole story with the world. the way the police set us up was unfair and humilatng. Follow me on twitter at @Dlu_pl3x to get the real story.

parmstronyahoo.com
parmstronyahoo.com

I doubt these people made $10, hell at the Jerry World's Death Star of AT&T Stajium they pay security the princely sum of $8.00 an hour.  I support the ongoing war on poverty.  These downtrodden have had it too good for too long.

sherriodjohnson
sherriodjohnson

Bufford T. Justice would be proud of Junior for pulling this stunt off.


everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

When you wouldn't have committed the crime but-for the cop pressuring you into it, that's entrapment.  If the ticket-takers told them, "I'll let you in for $50" then it's a good bust.  If the cop came up and said, "Hey, here's $50, can you let me in?" then it is likely entrapment.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

Oh dear.  Rochelle Girlfriend looks like a mister...

P1Gunter
P1Gunter

Doesn't DPD have more important things to worry about?

dingo
dingo

Seems a little like entrapment if there was no prearrangement and the cop just showed up with  a wad of cash in her hand.

Jamal4
Jamal4

I've gotten into many a game that way.  Free the CB4!

CitzenKim
CitzenKim

I once got into an Alabama - Auburn game, back when it was neutral site played in Birmingham, by an organized bribe to ticket taker (a group of about 30 of us passed through that gate).  Turned out about 10,000 extra got in that way - every aisle and walking area was filled with people.  The entire ticket taker staff was fired the next week!

Ardy
Ardy

@everlastingphelps If only it were that simple... "Affirmative findings of objective inducement (one part of a two part test required to establish entrapment) are generally limited to outrageous law enforcement actions occurring in instances of the rarest and most egregious government misconduct." Barnes v. State, 70 S.W.3d 294, 307 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd) (citing Hubbard v. State, 770 S.W.2d 31, 39 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd).

JustSaying
JustSaying

@Jamal4 I have never tried it at a sporting event but I have found my way inside a sold out concert or two.

parmstronyahoo.com
parmstronyahoo.com

"Sure, I'll just check with the boys down at the crime lab, They got four more detectives working on the case." 

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul Please sir, fill out the ID-10T form in triplicate, keep the pink copy for your records, mail the yellow and green copy to Dallas Water Utilities and Dallas Sanitation dpts respectively and hand deliver the white copy to Clovis R. Ledbetter of Macon GA.  If after 30 days your request has not been answered satisfactorily, repeat this process.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@Ardy @everlastingphelpsI never said it was simple, but you need to give all the context in Barnes.  One, it was a burglary charge, not a simple bribery charge.  Second, the threshold is subjective:

The amount of persuasion used to induce an ordinary law abiding person of average resistance who is not pre-disposed to commit the offense will vary from case to case. Torres, 980 S.W.2d at 877; Sebesta v. State, 783 S.W.2d 811, 814 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd). Affirmative findings of objective inducement are generally limited to outrageous law enforcement actions occurring in instances of the rarest and most egregious government misconduct. Hubbard, 770 S.W.2d at 39.

I think a lot of it would come down to how much money and how much wheedling there was.  If they were coming up with $50 each and a sob story (my friend was supposed to get me a ticket, they took my money and ran, my mom is already inside and she's old and has the dieabetus) then I think the instruction to the jury is warranted and a Dallas jury might acquit based on it.  After all, how much money is egregious temptation to someone who is probably making $10 an hour?

Rumpunch1
Rumpunch1

@everlastingphelps @Ardy Phelps, I would have normally agreed with you.  However, I have been to the Fair.  More than likely, they asked for the bribe.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @Ardy Actually, that's a stupid assumption. 

That was going to be my only argument.

I don't think it really matters if the instruction gets to the jury.  This is such a chickenshit bust that the jury will be looking for an out.  Unfortunately, they are more likely to plea to some lesser charge in our fake justice system.

Ardy
Ardy

@everlastingphelps @Ardy The context - at least in this sense - is irrelevant. I was only citing Barnes v. State to provide the language of the second prong of the test (I should have just provided the statutory language). It doesn't matter that it was a burglary rather than bribery (or "theft of service"). The law is still the same. At least I assume it is; if you know different, let me know. 

Second, the language I provided (and you amended) is not a subjective threshold. The first prong is subjective but the second is explicitly objective. What matters is whether an ordinary/reasonable/law abiding member of society would have taken the money. In other words, the jury would have to decide if an ordinary person would have taken the money, not an ordinary person making $10 an hour (and certainly not that particular defendant making $10). And what is most important is the officer's actions and whether they were egregious, not whether there was an egregious temptation relative to the defendant.

The first prong, the subjective element, would require a review of each defendant's history, their attitude, etc.; i.e., looking at whether they may have been predisposed to commit the offense or if they were actually induced by the police officers. 

Ultimately, it's just not that simple. I really wasn't trying to knock your comment or start an argument. It's just that without knowing all the facts and circumstances, assuming (and I'm not saying you are assuming) entrapment is misplaced. I agree with you that there could have been some sort of pleading with the gatekeepers to get them to give in. But I would think that officers organizing a sting operation would have at least been given instruction on how to go about it without potentially handing the defendants a way out. Actually, that's a stupid assumption. 

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...