Navarre resident Jackie Trebesh said she was flabbergasted and irritated when a Catholic priest denied her and her daughter Holy Communion, and then had a Santa Rosa County deputy pull her over.

She said she was so surprised by the actions of The Rev. John Kelly at St. Sylvester’s Catholic Church in Gulf Breeze she thought at first she was being “pranked.”

“He’s not God. He can’t do that to people,” she said.

Trebesh said she and her 19-year-old daughter Rachel attended a Friday morning service and were turned away when they approached the priest to take Holy Communion.

Trebesh said Kelly told them, as he denied them communion, that he would explain his actions after the mass had ended.

She said she decided not to wait around for the end of the service and had left the church parking lot when a deputy pulled her over.

Trebesh said the deputy informed her that Kelly had requested the traffic stop. She and her daughter were issued trespass warnings.

The Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Office and the Catholic Church confirmed much of her story, but said there were justifiable reasons for their actions.

According to Trebesh, she learned the reason she was denied communion was because someone at the church had seen the daughter dispose of the host, as it is called, improperly in the church parking lot.

The Catholic Church believes the wafer provided during Holy Communion to have been transformed during the mass to the actual body of Christ.

Continues: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/commun ... riest.html

She disposed of a body in the church parking lot? She should have been arrested.

Cracker abuse!! Burn her!

The policeman should be sacked and the priest should be prosecuted.

james1v wrote:The policeman should be sacked and the priest should be prosecuted.

Why?

The only thing that may have been done wrong is that the Reverend didn't appear to have notified the lady that she wasn't to come on private property before she attempted to attend mass. It doesn't really matter what reason the Reverend gave for not wanting her on the private property and the police were apparantly just carrying out their duties by giving her the tresspass warning.

You don't sack police officers for apparantly carrying out their duties and I fail to see what on what grounds you could prosecute the Reverend.

According to Trebesh, she learned the reason she was denied communion was because someone at the church had seen the daughter dispose of the host, as it is called, improperly in the church parking lot.

'Dispose of the host'? I've never heard it called that before.

They should flush the holy hosts down the toilet now.

I want some holy host. Where can I get some?

Ubjon wrote:

james1v wrote:The policeman should be sacked and the priest should be prosecuted.

Why?

The only thing that may have been done wrong is that the Reverend didn't appear to have notified the lady that she wasn't to come on private property before she attempted to attend mass. It doesn't really matter what reason the Reverend gave for not wanting her on the private property and the police were apparantly just carrying out their duties by giving her the tresspass warning.

You don't sack police officers for apparantly carrying out their duties and I fail to see what on what grounds you could prosecute the Reverend.

Oh PLEASE. She was not trespassing. How the fuck can you be trespassing by going to a church you've been going to without problems for so long and with no prior warning that you weren't welcome anymore? You know damn well the priest was just being a vindictive fuckwad and the cop was his cronie. Fuck 'em both sideways.

Even if the daughter did 'dispose of the host' and this was a good enough reason to refuse communion, why should the mother suffer for it?

Ubjon wrote:

james1v wrote:The policeman should be sacked and the priest should be prosecuted.

Why?

The only thing that may have been done wrong is that the Reverend didn't appear to have notified the lady that she wasn't to come on private property before she attempted to attend mass. It doesn't really matter what reason the Reverend gave for not wanting her on the private property and the police were apparantly just carrying out their duties by giving her the tresspass warning.

You don't sack police officers for apparantly carrying out their duties and I fail to see what on what grounds you could prosecute the Reverend.

If the article is correct, the officer pulled the woman over in a traffic stop. Cops are not allowed to perform traffic stops unless they have - at minimum - reasonable suspicion that an infraction has been committed. Seeing what as the woman had already peacefully driven away from the church property (to wherever she was pulled over), the cop had no reasonable suspicion as a basis for detaining her.

It wasn't trespassing unless she had been told previously that she could not set foot on church property, that she was no longer welcome there (where every sinner, even non-Catholics, is normally considered to be welcome). And the guardia are only supposed to get involved in a "trespassing" claim if the person returns after being warned off, or refuses to leave when requested. But if the "trespasser" is in the process of peacefully leaving when the authorities arrive, then there is no presumption of a crime having been committed. All they get to do is wave bye-bye to the departing person's back.

The cop exceeded his authority, and he probably knows it. He probably figured he can get away with it, because who's going to complain about getting pulled over - f you get away without receiving a traffic ticket, you're usually so relieved that you don't stop to think how unjustified getting pulled over was to begin with. In which case, he deserves to be fired for abuse of authority.

Or the cop may just be a dumb sack of shit and not know that having a badge doesn't entitle him to pull over anyone he wants with no legal justification. In which case he deserves to be suspended without pay while he learns something about the legal requirements for his job.

It's also possible that the priest needs to be criminally prosecuted for lying to the police, depending on what the fucker said about the women's behavior as grounds for asking that the police get involved.

hotshoe wrote:Cops are not allowed to perform traffic stops unless they have - at minimum - reasonable suspicion that an infraction has been committed.

That actually isn't true. Some cities have "Good Samaritan" traffic stops where they cite someone for acts of safe and polite driving practices. I think I would still be pissed for being pulled over but they do implement this.

They however cannot cite you an actual violation if they did not have probable cause when they pulled you over. In order to cite they have to have an initial reason for the stop, but they can pull you over for no reason.

Believe it or not, me and my friends were pulled over because we waved at cop. A "Hello there" and a smile type wave, not a "help me, I'm being kidnapped" wave. It didn't help our stereotypical impressions of cops

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

hotshoe wrote:Cops are not allowed to perform traffic stops unless they have - at minimum - reasonable suspicion that an infraction has been committed.

That actually isn't true. Some cities have "Good Samaritan" traffic stops where they cite someone for acts of safe and polite driving practices. I think I would still be pissed for being pulled over but they do implement this.

They however cannot cite you an actual violation if they did not have probable cause when they pulled you over. In order to cite they have to have an initial reason for the stop, but they can pull you over for no reason.

That's not true, legally. In practice, police can get away with pulling you over for no reason - and if the citizen is upset enough to file a complaint about being stopped for no reason, the police almost certainly can invent some reason retroactively to keep the officer out of trouble. But legally, police can detain a citizen only for certain specific reasons:
for committing a traffic violation
for suspicion of being involved in a criminal activity
to arrest the person for a criminal act

A traffic stop - with the lights/siren or just with the officer waving the car over - must be for one of those three purposes to be legal. A local ordinance which allows "good samaritan" traffic stops is a completely irrelevant for purposes of this discussion about trespassing and the deputy pulling the women over in a traffic stop to issue a "trespassing warning".

Was the woman committing a traffic violation ? No.
Was the woman suspected of being involved in a criminal activity ? No. Even if she was suspected of trespassing, trespassing doesn't become criminal until one refuses to leave/resists attempts to make one leave. And she already had left, ferchrissakes. Even a dumb deputy couldn't be confused about whether this fit the definition of criminal trespasssing.
Was the woman arrested ? No.

The officer overstepped his authority, doing the bidding of the church, using secular force to detain the women to issue the trespassing warning. The officer should face disciplinary action.

And the priest should be arrested for filing a false police report - if he did so.

Believe it or not, me and my friends were pulled over because we waved at cop. A "Hello there" and a smile type wave, not a "help me, I'm being kidnapped" wave. It didn't help our stereotypical impressions of cops

You're quite right not to be impressed.

paceetrate wrote:

Ubjon wrote:

james1v wrote:The policeman should be sacked and the priest should be prosecuted.

Why?

The only thing that may have been done wrong is that the Reverend didn't appear to have notified the lady that she wasn't to come on private property before she attempted to attend mass. It doesn't really matter what reason the Reverend gave for not wanting her on the private property and the police were apparantly just carrying out their duties by giving her the tresspass warning.

You don't sack police officers for apparantly carrying out their duties and I fail to see what on what grounds you could prosecute the Reverend.

Oh PLEASE. She was not trespassing. How the fuck can you be trespassing by going to a church you've been going to without problems for so long and with no prior warning that you weren't welcome anymore? You know damn well the priest was just being a vindictive fuckwad and the cop was his cronie. Fuck 'em both sideways.

As I said he should have told her beforehand that she wasn't to come to the church. By now I would hope that you'd have learned that what is just nonsense to the non-religious is very real to the religious and so I don't doubt that the reverend was genuinly unhappy with the daughers actions so to call his actions vindictive isn't appropriate.

We also don't know the full story. Perhaps the woman made a fuss was she was told that she wasn't wanted there and the police pulled her over to reinforce the point that she isn't to return? Again you should know by now that new articles often have a bias and omit details that spoil a good story.

I accept that the police may have gone to far but without knowing all the details its hard to judge.

hotshoe wrote:

Ubjon wrote:

james1v wrote:The policeman should be sacked and the priest should be prosecuted.

Why?

The only thing that may have been done wrong is that the Reverend didn't appear to have notified the lady that she wasn't to come on private property before she attempted to attend mass. It doesn't really matter what reason the Reverend gave for not wanting her on the private property and the police were apparantly just carrying out their duties by giving her the tresspass warning.

You don't sack police officers for apparantly carrying out their duties and I fail to see what on what grounds you could prosecute the Reverend.

If the article is correct, the officer pulled the woman over in a traffic stop. Cops are not allowed to perform traffic stops unless they have - at minimum - reasonable suspicion that an infraction has been committed. Seeing what as the woman had already peacefully driven away from the church property (to wherever she was pulled over), the cop had no reasonable suspicion as a basis for detaining her.

Fair point

hotshoe wrote:It wasn't trespassing unless she had been told previously that she could not set foot on church property, that she was no longer welcome there (where every sinner, even non-Catholics, is normally considered to be welcome). And the guardia are only supposed to get involved in a "trespassing" claim if the person returns after being warned off, or refuses to leave when requested. But if the "trespasser" is in the process of peacefully leaving when the authorities arrive, then there is no presumption of a crime having been committed. All they get to do is wave bye-bye to the departing person's back.

I did say that he should have notified her first. My suspicion is that someone else happened at the church but we're not getting all the details as this article is fairly biased in favour of the lady who was stopped. Perhaps she was asked to leave and then refused to leave for a period of time before finally going. Without knowing the full details we don't know whether or not it was reasonable to issue the tresspass warning.

hotshoe wrote:The cop exceeded his authority, and he probably knows it. He probably figured he can get away with it, because who's going to complain about getting pulled over - f you get away without receiving a traffic ticket, you're usually so relieved that you don't stop to think how unjustified getting pulled over was to begin with. In which case, he deserves to be fired for abuse of authority.

I agree that he shouldn't have pulled her over to issue the tresspass warning. It would have been more appropriate to visit her at home with prior warning.

hotshoe wrote:Or the cop may just be a dumb sack of shit and not know that having a badge doesn't entitle him to pull over anyone he wants with no legal justification. In which case he deserves to be suspended without pay while he learns something about the legal requirements for his job.

There is always that chance that he was Deputy Dumb

hotshoe wrote:It's also possible that the priest needs to be criminally prosecuted for lying to the police, depending on what the fucker said about the women's behavior as grounds for asking that the police get involved.

We'll never know what really went on but ultimate responsibility for the pulling the lady over lies with the poilce. Anyone could as a police officer to pull someone over who they have fallen out with but that doesn't mean that the police have to do it. I'm sure the police get constant requests for action that they ignore because its not appropriate/neccessary.

I think this is completely normal, definitely no reason for the officer to be fired that's just a rediculous notion.

It happens all the time, if I want my ex-g/f to leave me alone I can have her served by police with a formal no-trespassing warning, which is what happened here. The priest was going to tell them after mass but they left so he called the police to tell them because he obviously did not want them returning again. You can disagree with the priest saying they are not welcome all you want that has no bearing on the fact that the officer is just doing his job.

They did not get cited at all... a citation is a summons. All that has happened here is the police officer had been informed that the church wanted to issue a no-tresspass against these people and they were to be informed of this. As far as I know police can pull you over with no intent to give you a citation.

the priest is still a prick.

Maybe some good will come of it. Two fewer brainwashed people attending church.

What zoomgwtf said. In Florida you swear out a trespass warrant and the sheriff delivers it, that's the only legal way to enforce it. Just telling them isn't enough, nor are you required to do so.