In Baptist Vie Le v. State, 993 S.W.2d 650 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999), the Court reviewed the question: whether a police officer complied with section 52.02(a) when he took the juvenile to a magistrate and then directly to the homicide division. 993 S.W.2d 650, 655 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The facts were that the juvenile was taken into custody and then taken to a magistrate. Baptist Vie Le was then transported to the Houston Police Department where he gave a written statement. The Court held that the statement should have been suppressed because nothing in the record indicated that the Houston Police Department was an office designated by the juvenile court under section 52.02(a). See id. at 654-55. The Court emphasized that the language of section 52.02(a) was both clear and mandatory. See id. at 655. "The Legislature has set forth very specific actions which a law enforcement officer must take when arresting a juvenile. . . . We must not ignore the Legislature's mandatory provisions regarding the arrest of juveniles." Id. The Court reaffirmed our decision in Comer and noted that the legislature intended police involvement to be restricted to the initial seizure and prompt release or commitment of the juvenile. Id. (quoting Comer, 776 S.W.2d at 194-95). Because the evidence was obtained in violation of section 52.02(a), the Court held it was error not to suppress the confession and remanded for a harm analysis. See id. 993 S.W.2d at 655-56 ("The officer was required to do one of the five options listed in section 52.02(a) 'without unnecessary delay.' Taking Baptist Vie Le to the homicide division did not constitute one of these five options.").