Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Mississippi officer fired after jailing 10-year-old boy for peeing behind car

‘I’m just speechless right now. Why would you arrest a ten year old kid?’ the child’s mother said

Kelly Rissman
Wednesday 23 August 2023 12:39 EDT
Comments
Mississippi mother slams cops for detaining her young son for public urination

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

An officer in Mississippi’s Senatobia Police Department was fired after taking a 10-year-old child into custody for urinating in public.

The boy was taken into custody earlier this month after peeing behind his mother’s car, according to Fox13. When Latonya Eason stopped by the Senatobia attorney’s office for legal advice, her son started urinating behind her car, and a police officer spotted him.

Ms Eason recounted the incident to the network. She asked her son why he did that and he reportedly replied, “Mom, my sister said they don’t have a bathroom there.” Ms Eason then said, “You should have come and asked me if they had a restroom.”

The officer told the boy he could get back in the car, Ms Eason told the outlet, adding that the officer was just going to give a warning. But then several other police officers showed up – one said the child had to go to jail, she recalled.

“No, him urinating in the parking lot was not right, but at the same time I handled it like a parent and for one officer to tell my baby to get back in the car it was okay and to have the other pull up and take him to jail. Like no,” the mother told Fox13. “I’m just speechless right now. Why would you arrest a 10-year-old kid?”

“I started crying a little bit. They took me down there and got me out of the truck. I didn’t know what was happening,” the 10-year-old told the outlet. “I get scared and start shaking and thinking I am going to jail.”

The boy said they held him in a jail cell; his mother added that they charged him with child in need of services and then released him to her.

Police Chief Richard Chandler issued a statement saying the officers’ decision to transport the child to jail was a mistake
Police Chief Richard Chandler issued a statement saying the officers’ decision to transport the child to jail was a mistake (Senatobia Police Department)

“That could really traumatise my baby. My baby could get to the point where he won’t want to have an encounter with the police, period,” Ms Eason said.

The Senatobia Police Chief Richard Chandler told Fox13 that “the officer did not observe a parent on the scene during the initial contact.” He said that the officers transported the child to the police station where the child was released to his mother. He called the incident “an error in judgment” to relocate the child, as Ms Eason actually was nearby.

“Mistakes like this are a reminder in this profession as to the continual need for training and refreshers on the various topics that we encounter each day,” he said.

On Monday, Mr Chandler issued a statement on Facebook, saying that this incident “triggered an internal complaint,” which resulted in an investigation.

The police chief said that one of the officers involved “is no longer employed” as the “officer’s decisions violated our written policy and went against our prior training on how to deal with these situations.”

He added that other officers involved “will be disciplined.”

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in