Off-duty Carrollton police officer arrested for sexual assault, department says
A Carrollton police officer was arrested after being accused of sexual assault in Irving, the police department confirmed Monday.
The Irving Police Department told CBS News Texas that at about 1 a.m. Saturday, June 21, Carrollton Police Officer Wes Melton was taken into custody in the 200 block of E. Las Colinas Boulevard for sexual assault.
Details of the alleged assault have not been released at this time, but officers said Melton was off duty at the time of his arrest.
Melton has been with the Carrollton Police Department since January of 2024 and is currently assigned to patrol, the department said.
Melton is on administrative leave pending the outcome of the criminal and Internal Affairs investigation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
How Can A Creditor Get Information From The Debtor's LLC? Let Me Count The Ways
A subpoena orders one to appear and testify Let's say that a judgment creditor holds a charging order against a debtor's interest in an LLC. The charging order does two things: first, it creates a lien on the debtor's economic interest in the LLC and, second, it requires that any distributions due to the debtor be paid to the creditor instead. All well and good, but how does the creditor know if distributions are being made or what else is going on in the LLC? As a mere lienholder, the creditor has no right to obtain information directly from the LLC. Nor does the order to pay over distributions to the creditor does create any information rights against the LLC. So no joy there. As an aside, even if the creditor forecloses upon the charging order lien, the purchaser of the debtor's interest at the judicial sale (who is usually the creditor) will become no more than an involuntary assignee of the interest and that will not entitle the purchaser to information from the LLC either ― although that purchaser will probably receive a form K-1 each year. This is the commonly-marketed asset protection viewpoint anyway. But does this mean that the creditor is stuck with no means of getting information from the LLC? This question is answered, at least in Ohio, in the opinion issued in HDDA, LLC v. Vasani, 2025 Ohio 2000, 2025 WL 1587261 (Ohio App., June 5, 2025), which you can read for yourself here. The facts of the HDDA case are pretty simple. The creditor held a judgment against two individual defendants, and the individual defendants held interests in nine different LLCs. The creditor served subpoenas upon the LLC which sought financial information about the defendants. The defendants and the nine LLCs filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and also moved for the imposition of a protective order to block the creditor from obtaining that information. For its part, the creditor filed a motion to compel the nine LLCs to comply with the subpoenas. The lower court judge rejected the defendants' and LLCs' motions, but granted the creditor's motion to compel the nine LLCs to comply with the subpoenas. From that ruling, the defendants and the LLCs appealed to the Ohio Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the rulings. Since Ohio law in post-judgment enforcement proceedings allows the issuance of subpoenas to third-parties to uncover the financial information of debtors, it was proper for the subpoenas to be issued to the nine LLCs since they might have information about the assets of the debtors. Plus, there was apparently some evidence presented to the trial court that the debtors and the nine LLCs had commingled funds and assets. This was all fair game for the creditor's subpoenas. The debtors claimed that they were "only members" of the LLCs and that the creditor's sole and only recourse was to take a charging order against the debtors' interests in the LLCs, which would give the creditor rights against the debtors' interests but would not give the creditor any informational rights against the LLCs. To this point, the Court of Appeals noted that the third-party subpoenas were simply a different mechanism to obtain discovery against the LLCs and the subpoenas were not prohibited by the Ohio LLC law. In the end, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's issuance of the motion to compel, as well as its rejection of the motions to quash and for a protective order. ANALYSIS What this case basically illustrates is the old adage that there are "many ways to skin a cat". Creditors have many post-judgment enforcement tools available to them. They are not limited to just one tool where debtors hold LLC interests, the "exclusive remedy" language notwithstanding. Think of it as a creditor wanting to get into a city and there are several roads to get into that city. While the charging order road might be blocked, the third-party subpoena road is still wide open. Where this may get weird is that some states categorize their post-judgment discovery provisions as a "remedy" and in those states there might be a question as to whether that means those provisions are then blocked by the "exclusive remedy" language of the local LLC law, but that is for another day. I could see the arguments both ways. On one hand, the legislature knew what the creditor's remedies were when it adopted the "exclusive remedy" language and so it should be binding on all post-judgment remedies including discovery. On the other hand, post-judgment discovery to third-parties is commonplace and does not cause the sort of interference with the business that the "exclusive remedy" language was meant to address, so it really doesn't make any sense to apply it in that context (similar to how courts get around the charging order statutes in the case of single-member LLCs). It is worth noting that there is yet another way for a creditor to obtain information about an LLCs in which a debtor has an interest, which is to compel the debtor to obtain that information from the LLC and provide it to the creditor in a post-judgment debtor examination. As mentioned, when a creditor obtains a charging order against a debtor, the creditor only gets a lien and an order to pay. The debtor, however, remains a member in the LLC and (unless the LLC's operating agreement provides differently, and few of them do) is entitled to review all the books and records of the LLC. Thus, the creditor could compel the debtor to obtain that information and turn it over. A slightly narrower road which provides a glimpse into the LLC's activities is the K-1 that most LLCs issue to their members. In all but a rare few jurisdictions, these tax returns are discoverable by creditors and they usually contain a wealth of useful information about the LLC. Again, there are several roads available for a creditor to take, it is just a matter of the creditor following the road that is open and leads to the information sought by the debtor. In this case, the creditor seeks information of asset and fund commingling which, if proven, would allow the creditors to circumvent charging order exclusivity altogether and instead bring a motion to reverse-pierce the nine LLCs to get at their assets directly, instead of waiting around for distributions that might never be made. That is proper too, if the facts ultimately support it. We thus see for the umpteenth time that charging order exclusivity really isn't that exclusive. But I've been saying that all along. Hat tip to Tom Rutledge of Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC in Louisville for telling me of this opinion.
CBS News
32 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court takes up case of Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials for cutting his dreadlocks
Washington — The Supreme Court said Monday that it will consider a religious rights case brought by a former Louisiana inmate who is seeking to sue Louisiana prison officials for money damages for shaving his dreadlocks in violation of his religious beliefs. The high court will review a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that said the former inmate, Damon Landor, could not seek monetary damages against the officials in their individual capacities under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA. Landor is a devout Rastafarian who pledged to "let the locks of the hair of his head grow," known as the Nazarite Vow. Landor upheld that pledge for nearly 20 years, until he was nearly finished with a five-month prison sentence in Louisiana. For the first four months of his incarceration, the two facilities where Landor was housed allowed him to keep his hair long or under a "rastacap." But that changed after Landor was transferred to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center for the final three weeks of his sentence. Once there, Landor told an intake guard that he was a practicing Rastafarian and handed over proof of his religious accommodations, as well as a copy of a 2017 decision from the 5th Circuit that found Louisiana's policy of cutting Rastafarians' hair violated RLUIPA, according to court filings. But two guards ultimately handcuffed Landor to a chair, held him down and had his head shaved, according to papers filed with the Supreme Court. Landor filed a lawsuit against the prison officials after he was released and brought numerous claims, including under the RLUIPA. But a federal judge agreed to dismiss the case, finding that the law does not allow for damages against individual state officials. A three-judge panel of judges on the 5th Circuit affirmed that decision, ruling that while it "emphatically" condemned Landor's treatment, a prior decision in the circuit required it to hold that he could not seek money damages from officials in their individual capacities for violations of RLUIPA. The full 5th Circuit refused to reconsider the case, with 11 judges voting not to rehear it and six voting in favor. The case follows a Supreme Court decision from December 2020 in which it unanimously held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RLUIPA's sister statute, allows litigants to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities. Lawyers for Landor argued that Congress enacted the two laws to provide meaningful protection for religious liberty, and denying litigants the opportunity to seek damages for violations of RLUIPA would render that promise empty. Louisiana officials said in court papers that the allegations raised in Landor's appeal are "antithetical to religious freedom and fair treatment of state prisoners," and condemned them "in the strongest possible terms." But they urged the Supreme Court to turn away his appeal and said the state amended its prison grooming policy to prevent other inmates from being treated as Landor was. The justices will hear arguments in its next term, which begins in October, with a decision expected by the summer of 2026.
CBS News
37 minutes ago
- CBS News
Suspicious package prompts evacuation at Miami-Dade Government Center, disrupts rail service
A suspicious package discovered Monday morning at the Stephen P. Clark Government Center in Downtown Miami led to the evacuation of the building and surrounding area, along with major disruptions to public transit service, according to authorities. The Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office said deputies were alerted to the package around 9:20 a.m. at the government complex located at 111 NW First St. The department's bomb squad is on scene to investigate. Miami-Dade transit delays, station closures As a precaution, all Metromover service remains suspended. Metrorail is running modified service: Southbound trains are turning around at Culmer Station. Northbound trains are turning around at Brickell Station. Government Center Station is closed until further notice. Miami-Dade Transit said shuttle buses are being provided to help affected riders continue their trips, and riders should expect delays and allow extra travel time. No further details about the suspicious package or any potential threat have been released. The sheriff's office said updates will be shared as the investigation continues.
