City clarifies response at Bluff Springs residence

Statement from the City Manager’s office

Ferris—Dear Friends and Neighbors, 

As many of you may have seen, a recent post was shared on social media by a nontraditional journalist regarding an incident involving the City of Ferris Department of Public Safety (DPS). We respect the role that independent voices and citizen journalists play in elevating public discourse. At the same time, a single perspective may not provide the full scope of events or the necessary context. The City of Ferris, its Department of Public Safety, and the City Manager’s Office remain committed to transparency, factual accuracy, and direct communication with our community. 

On the morning of June 4, DPS officers responded to a reported burglary in progress at 844 Jett Drive, located in the Bluff Springs subdivision. While the property lies outside the formal boundaries of the City of Ferris, it falls within our service area under mutual aid protocols and through an interlocal agreement with the Municipal Utility District (MUD) responsible for that community. This arrangement ensures that public safety services can be provided quickly and effectively in surrounding areas during emergencies. 

The call was not initiated by a neighbor or passerby; it originated from a private burglary alarm monitoring company contracted by the residents. After the home’s alarm system was triggered, the monitoring company was unable to make contact with the homeowners and escalated the issue to Ferris DPS under established alarm protocols. 

Upon arrival, officers made initial contact at the front door with an adult female. During that brief exchange, the responding officer clearly explained that he only needed to confirm her identity to close the call without further inconvenience. The female stated she was not the homeowner and said she would get the homeowner, then closed the door without providing identification. 

Following that interaction, officers made repeated and sustained efforts to reestablish contact. Over the course of approximately twenty minutes, they knocked on both the front door and accessible windows, verbally announced their presence, and stated the nature of their response. They also attempted to engage through what appeared to be a home security camera at the front entryway. No one responded or returned to the door until such a time as an officer began entry into the home through a window.

At approximately 7:50 a.m., officers observed two adults, a male and a female, with an infant child inside the home through a window. When asked again to identify themselves, the individuals clearly stated they were not the homeowners and refused to come to the door. They then left the room and closed an interior door, severing all remaining communication. 

Given the origin of the call, an alert from a private burglary alarm system after the monitoring company could not reach the homeowners, the continued refusal to identify, the abrupt severing of contact, and the visible presence of a young child in a potentially unsafe situation, DPS officers made the decision to enter the home through a window to conduct a welfare check and ensure that no one was being harmed, restrained, or incapacitated. 

Upon entry, officers quickly confirmed there was no active burglary. One individual was temporarily detained due to continued noncompliance during the welfare check process. Multiple adults inside the home were found to have multiple outstanding Class C warrants, which do not require custodial arrest under Texas law.

Officers also observed the odor of marijuana and confirmed that both an infant and a toddler were present in the home. However, no one was arrested, and no action was taken related to the warrants or the marijuana odor, as the sole objective of the response was to resolve the alarm activation and ensure that all individuals were safe and accounted for. 

It is also important for the public to understand that this residence has been the subject of multiple prior DPS responses for a variety of concerning calls, including: 

 • June 4, 2025 – Burglary alarm (current incident) 

 • May 3, 2025 – Assist other agency, wanted person search 

 • February 4, 2025 – Assist other agency, disturbance 

 • November 15, 2024 – Assist other agency, physical altercation, or disturbance • September 29, 2024 – Fire alarm 

Additionally, on May 3, a bounty hunter visited the Ferris DPS station to inform officers that he was attempting to locate a fugitive believed to be staying at that same residence. 

Following the incident, a member of the City Manager’s Office met with the individuals at the Department of Public Safety to review and discuss the circumstances surrounding the response. That meeting was conducted in good faith, with the aim of providing clarity and answering any concerns directly. 

Multiple levels of internal review, including by the City Manager’s Office, have been conducted on the body camera footage and the actions of the officers involved. Each review confirmed that the officers acted within the scope of their authority, followed the law, and exercised sound judgment. They remained composed, respectful, and focused on the task at hand, ensuring the safety of everyone inside the home. 

Public safety does not operate in hindsight. Officers respond to what they know at the time, based on training, law, and duty, not assumptions made later through the lens of convenience or commentary. When an alarm is triggered, contact with the homeowner fails, and those present admit they are not the owner while refusing identification, the path forward is not theoretical. It is procedural, legal, and necessary. 

To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of public safety and the standards we expect of those who provide it. The expectation is not perfection; it is professionalism. And in this case, that expectation was met. 

SOURCE City of Ferris