I I was under the impression that he had the gun and that's why I found probable cause, not that someone else had the gun and he's just standing there is is like standing while black. On September 30th, 2024 in Harris County, Texas, a young man named Mr. Joyel faced a judge over a charge of evading arrest with a threat of jail time looming. Texas Penal Code section 38.04. A person commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows is a peace officer attempting to lawfully arrest or detain him. The officer claimed Joyel ran when police arrived at a Texico gas station after a vague 911 call about a group of juveniles with a gun, but something felt off. Joy's lawyer argued he wasn't even the one with the weapon. The judge's sharp questions hinted at doubt, setting the stage for a battle between justice and a potentially overzealous arrest. up to a year in jail and or a $4,000 fine. We're going to do probable cause. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can or will be used against you. You have the right to have an attorney present. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you. Sir, on September 30th, 2024, officers were dispatched to a weapons disturbance call in Harris County, Texas. The caller advised that he observed a group of juveniles with a handgun after walking into a Texico gas station. The caller asked the defendant if he had a gun, to which the defendant stated yes and that he had it for protection. The officer observed the group walking away from the gas station and activated his lights and siren. The defendant began to evade upon seeing the officer. The officer had prior interactions with the defendant and knew him by sight and name. The officer later was able to locate the defendant at his residence. So you said that he goes into a into a gas at Texico. 31. The complainant was walking into Texico and observed the defendant with another group of juveniles outside the gas station with a handgun. And then the Okay. So, who has a handgun? The handgun is the defendant. And the defendant, he has a handgun. Yes. And the defendant said he had that for his protection. Read it again. Yes, your honor. I I must be confused. Read it, please. Yes, your honor. The officer was dispatched to a weapons disturbance call in Harris County, Texas. The caller advised that he observed a group of juveniles with a handgun after the complainant walked into a Texico gas station. So you have to this is an unknown caller. Yes. This the caller, hey, I saw a gun here. I saw a gun with a group of juveniles. And the caller asked the defendant if the defendant had a gun to which the defendant stated yes that he had it for protection. And then the officer observed the group of juveniles walking away from the gas station and activated his license sirens. and the defense and they all like don't scam me. Yes, your honor, you were on bond for three felony cases. I have to imagine that one of the conditions that you're on bond for is no weapons and now you've picked up another case. So, stop. Don't don't see me. Mr. Joyel, I'm going to find that there's probable cause to go forward with your case. What time of day or night was this? Let me check the office report. It appears to be at I apologize. I don't know military time, but 13 26 hours. It's one in the afternoon. One in the afternoon. So, he's got the three felony cases upstairs. They're all no weapons as well. You need to understand that by picking up this case is very possible that they revoke your felony bonds and raise them. And that happens. Three felony warrants are going to issue for you. So, you need to get with your lawyer extremely quick. No, don't. But I am ordering you now as a condition of your bond not to be in possession any weapons. And I'm also ordering you not to use or consume any alcohol or dope. And I'm going to drug test you today cuz I want to know what if anything is in your system. You're to come right back and then we'll talk about your lawyer situation. Do you understand? Yes, sir. Yes, your honor. I was appointed on this case today. Okay. Um, judge, I wanted to see if we could hear probable cause on this. I have an issue with uh him being arrested for this. So, I wanted to see if we could hear that. What's your problem, judge? If I may. So, this O reads, "A group of individuals have a gun." It's impossible. A group of individuals can't have a gun. Somebody, one person has a gun. Now, furthermore, they So, so that alerts the officer of a problem and then he comes to do a further investigation. I I I get that in and of itself is nothing, but then they go to do a further investigation. Right. It's either um if I can make another argument, judge, the person states that he talked to the person that has the gun specifically talked to the one person that has the gun and he stated, "I have the gun for what?" That's him. No, you told me it's him. The initial caller stated he asked the defendant if he had a gun and then that's when the defendant stated yes and he had it for protection. They and I deems it says the defendant. It's not my There's two defendants. There's two people arrested. One that actually had the gun. My client doesn't have the gun. He was arrested for evading. There's no gun on him. The other gentleman was arrested for possession. I believe a Mr. Kenneth Kenneth there. If you look at the O, it's in there. There's somebody else was arrested. He wasn't found with the gun. It's not my client. Well, it says that the defendant was identified by the caller from fire booking photographs and the caller was the one who said that the defendant had the gun. Yes, your honor. It was the caller that identified the defendant and the one that spoke to the defendant who had the firearm and they were shown photos and they identified the defendant, Mr. Joy. Judge, I asked that they look at the O and see who actually got arrested for possessing the gun. Judge, I think it was the codefendant that had the gun. He's the one that was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Um, this defendant Yeah, the the the other codefendant has the gun, I believe. So, but that doesn't justify this defendant running away after they've established problem. Uh, that's that's the state's argument in our position for probable cause. What was he doing wrong? Somebody had a gun. That gives him get it. So, that that's why that person got arrested. But that's not But that's not that didn't just happen in that order. It's not they stopped, they detained. I I was under the impression that he had the gun and that's why I found probable cause. Not that someone else had the gun and he's just standing there. He's is like standing while black. You know, he's talked to the person that had the gun. Identify. If you can show me something that he's doing something wrong, then okay. But I was under the impression that he did that and then he takes off, hence the evading. If he's take your time, there's no rush, right? But if he's doing something wrong and then they're going to investigate him for doing something wrong and he takes off, that's a different question. But if he's doing nothing wrong and just standing there, no. As the hearing unfolded, the judge dug deeper, exposing cracks in the prosecution story. US Constitution, Amendment 4. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 911 caller mentioned a group, but no clear description pointed to Joy as the gunman. Yet, the officers zeroed in on him. Joyel's attorney pressed hard. Another person was charged with possessing the gun, not Joyel, who was merely standing while black. The judge grew skeptical, noting the officer didn't know who had the gun when he rolled up. Was this a case of racial profiling dressed up as probable cause? The courtroom tension peaked as the judge weighed cutting Joy loose. This guy that they talked to I I get it. Let Let me see if they have anything else. If not, then I'm going to cut him loose. Okay, judge. See, please. Okay. Um, so I'm going off of B. Um, there's a couple of descriptions that are in here. First, there's two people that seem to be involved. One is the store clerk and then one is the person that says he sees somebody dumping a gun. Now, we don't know what description is what, but under the point where it says prohibited weapon suspect, the suspect was described as a black male wearing a black shirt in two-tone colored jeans. It doesn't say who's making this description, whether it's the convenience store person or this second witness. And Ricardo, I can clarify that judge, we called the officer beforehand. They indicated that they're they did not know when they came up who who was there, like who exactly had the gun. We listened to the 911 call. The 911 caller just indicates there's a group of juveniles. There's three black three black males, two Hispanic, one white. And one of them indicated to me that he had a gun, one of the black males. But at that time, they didn't have a description, a a decisive description to indicate it was one of those males. In this case, if he was Hispanic, there' be no problem. He was wiped with no probable cause, right? Because we know that when the officer goes to investigate, it could not have been that person. But he when he's going to do his investigation, he's knows one of the black males has a gun, but he doesn't know who. So, he has to do the investigation. But prior but for him being able to do it, they all take off. If I may, Judge. So my argument, my argument is just based off of the O. My understanding is that they're going outside of the O. They could supplement this case if they want to. They could refile it. I really want to know what the officer All I want to know is what the officer knew about who had the gun when he went up there. Did he know anything about which defendant had it? It's not in the O text. There's the problem. Understood. Okay. If you find something different later on, then reapproach and show me. And then I'm I'm happy to redo problem caused. If you can show me that there's something different, I'm always happy to re reenter it and do and do it again. But the only thing I can show you is what's in the O where it says the description of the black male wearing a black shirt and two-tone colored jeans. And to be clear, judge, we will be contacting the officer again today and having them file a supplement to correct. You tell you're telling me that when the officer rolled up to all those people out there, he knew the person that had the gun was wearing a black shirt and two tone color jeans. Is that what you're saying? I I don't know what the officer knew, Judge. If that's the case, if he knows if he's going up to the group of kids and knows that that the gun holder was wearing that and he's not wearing that, then we know it's no probable cause. All I'm stating is what's in the O. I don't have the answers that you're asking for. He's getting the answers based on a phone call that I don't have access to. I don't have Yeah. Well, that's I'm not and I'm not considering that. I don't care about that. So then my only I don't care what he's telling me. All I care about at this point is what the officer knew when he goes up to do his initial investigation. Okay. And judge, just to be absolutely clear, page seven indicates specifically who told the officer that description. And it's the second witness, not the first witness when they that they had information about when they rolled up. The second witness that identified him dumping the gun. Who is the second witness? It's just somebody that identified him as there's a juvenile male just dumping a gun. Is this just a random person that's in the in the text? This is a third party witness. So the first witness is the gas station attendant. The second witness is just a a citizen somehow sees the gun and alerts authorities, hey man, I see someone with a gun. And he didn't give a description. He did. This person did give a description. They said black male with a black shirt and two-tone jeans. So he does say that to to the officer. No judge. That was after the people had already run. The only thing the officers knew was what they had in the first 911 call was that a black male identified was said that he did it, but there was three of them and two Hispanics and a white male and they all ran. So they had PC to at least up 911 caller say as far as who had it. They just said the 911 caller didn't give us an exact description. He said, and I will say it kind of appears as though English may not be his first language. When he's speaking to the the person on 911, he says that there was somebody there was a group of juveniles that came into the store. One of them had a gun. He asked if he was licensed. The individual said no. And he asked them to leave. And then he called the police and he said it's a group of four men. And this is the actual This is the actual attendant. No, but the the gas station attendant, the person working there. Yes. And he doesn't give a description at that time. He doesn't the 911 operator does not ask you know what is the person wearing that they've walked outside and that they're in the parking lot like the same people that were just So then the officer goes to do the investigation they all bolt I don't think they all bolted oh they didn't who who bolts my guy bolts and then the person with they all all of them do did they all get charged with with the I don't know if they caught anybody else I'm tell judge And the reason his criminal history is cuz I'm telling you they he's known in the community. He's got to Why didn't the guy with the gun get charged with baiting as well? Because they got he got the felony charged. That's why they could have been a it would have been a dick move and charge him what they wanted and they could have but he's lucky they didn't. You know that's like you get a DWI and then they give you a speeding ticket on top of it, right? That's just make the argument. I'm sorry. You know, but had it been different, I have no problems finding problem causing cases. You know, it it come up after about an hour of argument here. And maybe it goes a different way once we actually get the 91. If you find anything else, I'm happy always to revisit, but it will y'all. And it's like this. Yeah. Other Spanish. Oh, yeah. Yeah. With a J. That's right. Spanish. So I am going to find that there's probable cause. Okay. When you hang with dogs, you get fleas. I know. You now know. I know. Now just listen. You are on bond for two very serious felony cases, right? Is it just two or is it like three? Three other cases. Judge, I'm just representing. You shouldn't be hanging out with dogs because you could get in a lot of trouble even standing there. Life is more difficult for you because of who you are and you need to be aware of this. You already are behind the gun and you're only making things worse. Sir, as you now know, they might file felony charges against you or well revoke the bond. So sir, as it stands now, if you become a danger to my Houston, I'm going to put you in jail. You need to know that. No weapons. Do you understand? She wants no gun, sir. All right. Did you file? I can file that. No, please. Just no weapons. And then after that, we'll just reset it. Stay in touch with him. I've given you a lawyer. If you don't stay in touch with Ricardo and he tells me he can't get a hold of you, likewise. Okay. Yes, sir. Okay, ma'am. But in a stunning turn, the judge ruled there wasn't enough evidence to hold Joyel, prioritizing fairness over a shaky arrest. Terry v. Day, Ohio, 392, US1, 1968. Probable cause requires specific, articulable facts, not mere suspicion. He criticized the officer's vague assumptions and refused to let Joy be punished for someone else's actions. But the judge didn't stop there. He warned Joy about his three pending felony cases, urging him to steer clear of trouble. You're on bond for serious charges. Don't hang with dogs or you'll get fleas. This sharp-witted judge saved Joyel from an unjust charge while delivering a life lesson, proving that true justice balances mercy with accountability. Like and subscribe for more police cam stories. Watch the next recommended video. Click to watch now.