Texas Cop Chases Prostitution Suspect, Causes Car Accident, Gets Immunity
Houston police "initiated a high-speed chase to pursue a suspect evading arrest for paying $40 to solicit sexual activity from another adult," notes a Texas Supreme Court judge.

Houston police officer Ricardo Corral is not legally liable for crashing his police cruiser into another vehicle, the Texas Supreme Court ruled last week. After all, he was in hot pursuit of someone apparently considered a dangerous villain: an adult man who sought to pay a consenting adult woman for sex.
During a prostitution sting in 2019, Corral "made a wide turn from the middle lane," per Houston Public Media. He subsequently crashed into a truck containing two passengers, including driver Ruben Rodriguez.
Rodriguez sued, alleging both he and his passenger suffered injuries for which Corral should be held liable.
Now the Texas Supreme Court has dismissed the case, saying Corral is protected by "official immunity," a "common-law affirmative defense" under which authorities are shielded from legal repercussions for actions performed "in good faith" and "within the scope of their authority."
You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.
'In the Heat of a High-Speed Pursuit'
In this case, Corral was "acting in good faith when he executed the turn and collided with the bystander's truck," the court determined. Because of this, and because bad driving is part of police chases, he is not legally liable for the accident he caused.
"It bears emphasizing that what may be unreasonable in one context could be justifiable in another, especially in the heat of a high-speed pursuit when officers must make split-second decisions under intense pressure," wrote Justice John Devine in the court's December 31 opinion.
This would all be unremarkable if Corral was speeding after a dangerous criminal—someone wanted for, say, murder or violent assault. Likewise if he was rushing to get to the scene of crime where time was of the essence in order to protect potential victims.
But in this case, Corral's reckless chase was in pursuit of someone suspected of soliciting prostitution. The whole business was kicked off by the suspect offering to pay an undercover female cop posing as an adult sex worker.
Police put in danger the lives of countless people in order to arrest someone for trying to have consensual but non-state-sanctioned sex.
This is bonkers.
Ruling 'Should Not Be Construed as Sanctioning…a High-Speed Chase' To Catch Prostitution Suspects
The Texas Supreme Court's ruling also serves as yet another reminder of how immunity doctrines often shield cops from the consequences of their own bad or reckless decisions. Here we have a cop who felt justified in endangering innocent people in order to catch someone suspected of a completely victimless and nonviolent crime.
At least one judge acknowledged that the circumstances here were a bit dodgy, while still concurring in the majority's opinion. In a separate opinion, Justice Brett Busby writes that the court's ruling "should not be construed as sanctioning the decision to initiate a high-speed chase in these or similar circumstances."
Granted, Corral's partner ran the driver's license plate during the chase and found that the car he was driving had been reported stolen. But "hindsight and changing circumstances during the pursuit may not be used to immunize a contested decision to initiate pursuit in the first instance," writes Busby.
In this case, the initial pursuit was to go after someone suspected of what was at that time a misdemeanor crime. (The state has since made soliciting prostitution a felony.) Essentially, "they initiated a high-speed chase to pursue a suspect evading arrest for paying $40 to solicit sexual activity from another adult," Busby points out.
Moreover, since the initial pursuit started before the officers knew the case involved a stolen vehicle, it happened under circumstances where it was likely possible for cops to later apprehend their guy. They had seen the man involved, had seen his car, and had his license plate number. Even if they consider soliciting sex such a serious matter that they simply cannot abide anyone getting away (an absurd position, to be sure), they could have vowed to carry out the arrest later rather than embarking on a high-speed car chase around Houston.
"High-speed chases inevitably involve obvious, significant, and often fatal risks: to the public at large, to other drivers, to innocent bystanders or passengers, to the fleeing suspect, and to the pursuing officers," Busby concluded. "Incurring those risks may be reasonable and justifiable to stop fleeing suspects who pose a danger to our communities. But unless there is an accompanying reasonable suspicion of potential harm or danger, violent behavior, or other criminal activity, the need to apprehend a suspected nonviolent misdemeanant is unlikely to support official immunity for initiating an urban high-speed pursuit with all the risks such a pursuit entails, especially when information is at hand to later apprehend and identify the suspect."
More Sex & Tech News
• "For months, Meta has been restricting content with LGBTQ-related hashtags from search and discovery under its 'sensitive content' policy aimed at restricting 'sexually suggestive content,'" reports Taylor Lorenz. "Posts with LGBTQ+ hashtags including #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans, #queer, #nonbinary, #pansexial, #transwomen, #Tgirl, #Tboy, #Tgirlsarebeautiful, #bisexualpride, #lesbianpride, and dozens of others were hidden for any users who had their sensitive content filter turned on. Teenagers have the sensitive content filter turned on by default."
• Facebook's fact-checking era is over.
• Florida law enforcement is already investigating porn websites that don't age-check visitors, said a spokesperson for the state attorney general's office. A law requiring age verification took effect on January 1.
• New research published in JAMA Pediatrics suggests that "fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents with commercial insurance received gender-affirming medications—puberty blockers or hormones—during a recent five-year period," ABC News reports.
• India is cracking down on VPNs.
Today's Image

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
After all, he was in hot pursuit of someone apparently considered a dangerous villain
Well, there it is. You could have just ended the article right there.
“If you fix the broken windows, the building won’t decay. If you tolerate disorder, it will spread.”
This is bonkers.
No, ENB. What's bonkers is the people thinking they have the right to commit crime with impunity just because they don't care for the particular law they're breaking. And when you give them a pass for doing so, you leave the windows broken.
You create an environment of lawlessness which only encourages MORE and WORSE crime.
This - this right here - is what none of you druggies and whores on this site get: "This would all be unremarkable if Corral was speeding after a dangerous criminal".
It doesn't friggin' MATTER whether it was a "dangerous" criminal. It was a (suspected) criminal. Period. Full stop. Your attempt to qualify it doesn't somehow mean that the police should stop doing their job. This is precisely why the Court found that his actions were "in good faith" and "within the scope of their authority."
If you want a society of law and order - and at this point, I'm not even a little bit convinced that you do, as you seem to worship ACAB anarchy - you have to investigate, arrest, and prosecute the criminals. If you don't like the crimes (or their sentences), it's incumbent upon you to put together a coalition to try and change them.
This traffic accident absolutely deserved immunity. It was a police officer doing his job chasing a fleeing suspect - in a stolen car - who evaded arrest at high speeds putting himself, the officer, and everyone around him in danger. You try to make it about the oh-so-innocent trading of cash for sex, but it's not about that. It's about literally everything else you are overtly ignoring in order to poorly rationalize your one-trick (pun fully intended) pony pet subject.
It's about a culture that has fostered a thorough disrespect for the law because they're so entitled that they think it shouldn't apply to them.
"High-speed chases inevitably involve obvious, significant, and often fatal risks
Here's the thing, Liz. The cops never start them. The bad guys do.
Stop making excuses for them.
Here's the thing, AT. Soliciting sex from a prostitute is not harmful, is not violent, and is none of the government's business.
If you can't see the difference between soliciting a prostitute and murder, you are just another damned statist.
Bastiat said that when law and morality are in conflict, then one must choose to give up their morality or give up their respect for the law. When someone defends any and all laws, then it's pretty obvious which choice they made.
Good to know that, despite the bad weather across the country, bastiat.com is still up and running!
Defending the law, and defending the Rule of Law are two very, very different things.
I'm 100% against laws that require smog checks for vehicles. I hate those laws. I think they're stupid, serve no purpose, and extort money from motorists.
I still get my car smogged every year. I don't like it, but until I can get those laws repealed my failure to do so is in violation of statute.
And if I run from the cops when they tried to bust me on it, then obviously they're within the scope of their authority and proper purpose to chase me.
Which is no different in any way shape or form than what happened here.
Running from the cops does create risk and harm others. Believing people should be free to pay for sex excuses none of the rest by the perpetrator.
She can advocate for whores without removing agency from this person for blatantly harmful acts.
No, a non-violent suspect creates no risk by running from cops who know who the suspect is.
You may as well blame a mugger's victim running away for creating the risk of the mugger shooting at the fleeing victim.
Actually, the running does create the risk idiotic assertions aside.
Those are reasons to hold the government accountable for the policy of a high stakes chase after low stakes crime.
But I don't think it's fair to hold the cop individually accountable for following policy, assuming that he was.
Those are reasons to hold the government accountable for the policy of a high stakes chase after low stakes crime.
No there's not. The tacit argument behind that is that "low stakes crimes" shouldn't be enforced if criminals raise the stakes. Which is nonsense. It's the same problem store owners have with shoplifters. The shoplifters know that if they can make it out of the store, the staff isn't allowed to chase them. Which has only emboldened shoplifters and made them act with impunity. It's gone from shoving something into a pocket, to walking out with multiple carts full of stolen goods.
Again, broken windows. California just figured this out the hard way.
Soliciting sex from a prostitute is not harmful, is not violent, and is none of the government's business.
WHOOSH.
Missed the entire point.
Even if we believe prosecuting prostitution offenses is a good thing, why do they need to make the arrest right then and there. They know who the guy is and the car he drives. They can arrest him at home. There was no need for a car chase, and the cops should have known that.
You really think a high speed chase is justified over a misdemeanor? Are you crazy?
Yes he is. AT slobbers at the mouth for ANY slight on cops.
You really think a high speed chase is justified over a misdemeanor?
Misdemeanor? Could you imagine if Stormy Daniels was actually cop with porn star as her cover?
Even if we believe prosecuting prostitution offenses is a good thing
I made no comment as to whether it was a good or bad thing. Just that it's a crime, and therefore enforcement of it is proper.
why do they need to make the arrest right then and there.
Why not? He's there, they're there, and the guy has just illustrated that he's willing to escalate things.
Think of it this way. You're jaywalking, and a cop starts chasing you. You grab the nearest person and put a gun to their head, screaming, "Back off or she get it!"
Well, there's no need to agitate a hostage taker, right? Best way to resolve it is to just walk away. He'll let her go, and you can (hopefully) pick him up later.
Except now you've just telegraphed to the criminals that escalating a minor crime will make the police less willing to enforce it. Which will only encourage them to do it with impunity, and escalate whenever caught.
Broken windows.
There was no need for a car chase, and the cops should have known that.
The guy fled. That was the need.
You really think a high speed chase is justified over a misdemeanor?
No. But remember who instigated the high speed chase. It wasn't the cops. Put the blame where it belongs.
why do they need to make the arrest right then and there. They can arrest him at home.
In your defense, The Dopeler Effect at play again here.
Did the guy hand his ID to a (presumed) prostitute for her to jot down his address (because we know how good Officers are at that, presumably prostitutes fully qualified by having a vagina, usually, are even better)? Did he have his home address tattooed on his forehead? Was it current? Did he re-register the stolen car to his home address?
How *exactly* would police know which house to expect the stolen car to show up to?
More wishcasting, if not deliberate malfeasance.
If net safety is not applicable, why not nuke the guy? Trading something not threatening to public safety for smashing into parked cars is a lousy tradeoff. Also stopped the chase, I would imagine, so no good outcome there. If all this is perfectly acceptable, why is this not treated as a taking?
If net safety is not applicable, why not nuke the guy?
Nobody said net safety isn't applicable. Just that it's not always guaranteed. Caution should be taken as much as reasonably possible, but sometimes things get broken.
It happens.
Again, it boggles my mind that people aren't placing the blame on the criminal here. He instigated literally every aspect of this. He committed the crime. He then exacerbated it. He then created a dangerous situation. But no, it's the cop's fault for some reason for doing nothing other than precisely what he's supposed to - respond to/intervene in crime.
If all this is perfectly acceptable, why is this not treated as a taking?
I'm pretty sure the guy who's property was damaged has a bulletproof insurance claim against the Department's carrier. He'll be made whole. So... what more do you want?
I'm pretty sure the guy who's property was damaged has a bulletproof insurance claim against the Department's carrier. He'll be made whole.
Sure, just like the woman whose house was destroyed by a SWAT team because some unknown guy broke in. From that article:
Oh wait, that didn't happen at all. Could it be you're an idiot? Your argument then was to sue the dead crook's estate for damages. Why is your tune different now, Copketeer?
Auto and home are two different animals.
Could it be you're an idiot?
Welp, I think I've finally gotten a straight answer from you. Thanks.
Good. So, could you please stop being so gay about everything now?
AT, do you get text messages from the FOP to go shit all over Reason? Do you get paid?
No and no.
It doesn't friggin' MATTER whether it was a "dangerous" criminal. It was a (suspected) criminal. Period. Full stop.
This is why the police need nukes. You nuke the city fast enough and it doesn't friggin' MATTER if the suspect is fleeing from the scene of the crime. The suspect is dead and justice is therefore served. Period. Full stop.
I have my reservations about that, but as always I'm willing to meet the opposition halfway.
Let's give it a try in New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, Boston, Austin, Denver, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, and Miami.
That strategy leaves too much open ground where petty criminals like shoplifters and solicitors might remain. Only global nuclear holocaust will give us the best chance of ending all crime forever.
Anyone opposed to that is probably some ACAB nutjob who wants crime to flourish.
We'll never know unless we try. Are you cool with implementing this pilot program in the above-mentioned cities?
Remember, this was your idea. I'm simply trying to make it realistic and beneficial.
Your unwillingness to eliminate all crime as rapidly as possible shows you're just another Marxist ACAB loony who wants criminals to run roughshod over polite society.
Horrible.
We're not sure it'll eliminate all crime. That's why we need test cases. I volunteered some cities. I don't see you supporting it.
This is a lot of words to defend the indefensible. Murdering cops should go to prison, not be rewarded for their bad judgement. Police are out of control in this country, from the huge, crime-ridden cities to small towns in every state, where false confessions are coerced using psychological torture. Police officers are utterly untrustworthy, and the absolute last thing I would ever do is call a cop for help.
Then don't.
But also don't solicit hookers. Because that's a crime.
Police are out of control in this country
Actually, it's the criminals who are out of control. Because nobody seems to want them policed anymore.
This is a lot of words to defend the indefensible.
AT's had lots of practice defending the indefensible.
You are confused. We're discussing law enforcement (a proper purpose of government) - not abortion, LGBT pedo, illegal immigration, recreational drug use, etc etc.
This story is actually really awesome, especially coming from ENB, but not for the points you highlighted.
Let's key in on the sentence, presumably ENB's own "since the initial pursuit started before the officers knew the case involved a stolen vehicle, it happened under circumstances where it was likely possible for cops to later apprehend their guy."
Let's start by saying this is isn't just a post hoc error, it's a fundamental inversion of the causality logic. If the suspect is unaware they're being pursued *then* they can be apprehended later in possession of the stolen goods. Once the pursuit has started, it would be patently stupid for anyone, cops, civilians, criminals, anyone (but apparently exceptionally bright by jurinalist standards) to just assume the cops could show up at the residence and wait for or expect the suspect to show up, stolen property in hand. It certainly happens, especially for politically/theatrically motivated criminals, but assuming the guy didn't steal Brian Thompson's car and just stole any car out of self-interest, it's not likely.
But, per ENB's very, extra, super-valid, waive-the-wand-in-their-face-and-declare-you've-got-nothing-up-your-sleeve point, they didn't know the car was stolen at the time, all they knew was that the guy had solicited a female police officer. So, presuming the officers figure "We can just haul the guy in later.", again per ENB's not bad, very good, extra-super valid, impeccable point/recommendation, where does that leave the female officer? Presumably just conducting a business exchange, right?
So, then, and this is where it brushes against you're point, let's say this was Denmark or wherever and the woman wasn't a cop and was just an empowered sex worker who didn't want to do a particular job that a car thief paid her to do. Are the cops supposed to just say "Yeah, we'll pick him up whenever he gets home."? How are they to know when he gets home? Sit on his house all day? Pay or coerce the neighbor to notify them?
What a magnificent patriarchy-free, non-police state where prostitutes must service men and neighbors snitch to the police about criminals ENB has rhetorically backed her way into.
The issue isn't that ENB is a one trick pony. It's that she never aged out of the 7 yr. old "I want a pony." wish casting. This is observable from her other other "Sex & Tech News" blurbs as I point out below. Like Veruca Salt, she doesn't actually care about any of the things she desires, she just wants to traipse through life making demands and having those demands catered to, stamping her feet and having people genuflect no matter how unrealistic or absurd she's being even well after the fact.
Are the cops supposed to just say "Yeah, we'll pick him up whenever he gets home."? How are they to know when he gets home? Sit on his house all day?
I think the unspoken goal is that none of that happens, and the bad guy just gets away.
I think the unspoken goal is that none of that happens, and the bad guy just gets away.
Which, as indicated leaves, the female police officer and/or sex workers hanging in the breeze and renders things like Denmark's "empowering workers to refuse acts or clients" null at best, as the John can do as he pleases and, maybe, just pay a fine when he gets home, if the police bother with it at all.
Note to foreign readers: The ATF signal summoned the Christian National Socialist champion of License-To-Kill immunity for mindless looter thugs.
Note to foreign readers - either have a valid visa or a green card. Less than two weeks to go.
What about Ashli Babbitt?
Poor sarc. No more ideas™ .
Wonder if sarc would support this cop if the John was a J6er. Wait. I don't wonder. He would.
What would Bastiat say about that?
Probably ask you to stop asking stupid questions.
...Justice Brett Busby writes that the court's ruling "should not be construed as sanctioning the decision to initiate a high-speed chase in these or similar circumstances."
I'm sure law enforcement will get right on changing their policies.
How do you initiate a chase from behind?
You "initiate a chase" by choosing to chase, not by choosing to run.
Think about it - if you start running and no one comes after you, it's by definition not a chase - you're just out for a jog.
I’ll buy that.
no I like your initial question.
If you think that's funny, wait until you read ENB's "Once they started the chase and figured out the car was stolen they could've just waited for the perp to show up... somewhere... still riding around in a/the stolen car and arrested him then and there (avoiding *another* chase... presumably?)." armchair analysis.
It's like a journalistic ride along with Chief Quimby.
Speaking of initiating Chase from behind, did you know Chase Oliver was gay?
Do you want his phone number?
No. I'm not hiring now.
What about those cheap dudes who seek to have sex with women for the sale price of $0 dollars?
They may be paying with their soul.
So twat's going on here? When I chase a slutty hooker, shit is a CRIME!!!
When the COPS chase a slutty hooker, or The Donald chases Spermy Daniels, shit is CUMMENDABLE!!!!
So cop gets immunity for initiating chase of criminal caught committing a crime? Shocking.
You don't want this to happen then change the fucking law if it's that damn unimportant and unharmful. Stop demanding we ignore the law until you find it useful to go after someone with it.
It's not the crime so much, as acting in a way that causes damage to bystanders, and then not taking responsibility for it. The government attitude of "It sucks to be you" should stop.
So place the responsibility on the criminal that is running. You lot are just as bad as the "defund the police" morons as you champion criminals and criminality for it's own sake.
"They had seen the man involved, had seen his car, and had his license plate number."
ENB, how is it you can't get through a piece without lying through your fucking teeth? In point of fact, according to the information in your own fucking article, all they had was what the man looked like because... drumroll please... the car was stolen. I realize that it may be difficult for your pea brain to process, but after being chased by the cops, the guy with the stolen vehicle is unlikely to keep driving the stolen vehicle. Best case scenario is that he merely ditches it and the cops manage to lift prints. More likely he carts it to the nearest chop shop for a quick buck. Most dangerous is he dumps it somewhere and then lights it on fire, possibly ending up with other structures burning.
So it wasn't just prostitution. I for one am shocked a reason writer largely ignored details to push a narrative.
On a separate note regarding puberty blockers and hormones, that means the incidence of child mutilation is happening over an order of magnitude more often than there are hard line multi-year clinical diagnoses for mental and genetic disorders of the various gender dysphoria. Which should absolutely horrify any sane person.
it's Houston, Jake.
Taylor Lorenz
WTHF? It's like an insane lesbian feminist jurinalist clusterfuck.
So, as if advocating that LGBTQ (and other) minors learn sexuality through Facebook weren't insane enough, you decided to highlight a 60-yr.-old narcissistic, still-forcing-people-to-wear-COVID-masks psycho/sociopath's advocacy of it to... what? Advance your notion of free speech? Advance health and wellness? Highlight mental disease awareness?
What's next? Sabrina Erdely's rape confabulation/fan fic courses for teens?
Really bafflingly that ENB thinks this noteworthy. It applies only to people who choose to turn on their sensitivity filter and kids who filtered by default. Kids are filtered from a lot of things which was never controversial before the trans agenda. Really don't see a victim here. Why is ENB desperate for kids to read up on T Girls are Beautiful?
And, again in 1A fashion, my understanding is that if, through some insane arrangement, they're meeting with their medical care provider via Facebook to discuss some LGBTQ+ issue, DMs and similar still work and Facebook still supports them.
It's that Facebook, as a private company is still supporting LGBTQ people individually, just not necessarily facilitating people broadcasting their sex lives to the *entire* world. You know, conforming to the 1A like both a literal and metaphorical Good Samaritan.
Once again and as usual, they don't care about Social Media or Facebook or the 1A or what a Good Samaritan would actually do or represents intrinsically, they only care as much as they can use them to abuse you into submission and make you bend the knee.
New research published in JAMA Pediatrics suggests that "fewer than 1 in 1,000 U.S. adolescents with commercial insurance received gender-affirming medications—puberty blockers or hormones—during a recent five-year period," ABC News reports.
So... I guess the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of teen girls getting *The* (hormone) Pill, on their parents' insurance, to control their gender-specific reproductive system aren't an affirmed gender.
With libertarian feminists like you, who needs libertarians or feminists?
Makes one wonder how many jews per 1000 were killed in the five year period between 1940 and 1945?
• "For months, Meta has been restricting content with LGBTQ-related hashtags from search and discovery under its 'sensitive content' policy aimed at restricting 'sexually suggestive content,'" reports Taylor Lorenz.
Uhh... ha...HAHAHA! hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Pay no attention to those libertarian spoiler votes! Vote against what you want and for for Christian National Socialism! Adolf Drumpf can thus loose more paid killers to murder and maim with immunity and impunity. No price is too high for you (not them) to pay for a nation of brainwashed Hitlerjudend and Deutches Madel Trilbys. Herbert Hoover made Amerika Great and even got Hitler elected chancellor. THAT's winning Gee-Oh-Pee style.
Moreover, since the initial pursuit started before the officers knew the case involved a stolen vehicle, it happened under circumstances where it was likely possible for cops to later apprehend their guy. They had seen the man involved, had seen his car, and had his license plate number. Even if they consider soliciting sex such a serious matter that they simply cannot abide anyone getting away (an absurd position, to be sure), they could have vowed to carry out the arrest later rather than embarking on a high-speed car chase around Houston.
Isn't the standard spiel that Police are "trained" to know when to shoot and when not to shoot , when to act and when not to act, etc ? Isn't that the whole idea behind a trained profession forced instead of civilian vigilantism ? Then why when they screw up do we insist that they couldn't have possible done it any other way and should not be held accountable for anything that goes wrong due to their own actions ? You just HAD TO make a turn across traffic, and couldn't possibly wait to get him later ?