Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

A cop asking to search your vehicle will usually do so very politelty. A common appraoch is- "You don't have any drugs or guns in your car do you? Then you don't mind if I search your car do you?"

Of course you mind. It's your car. Do you routinely let strangers go through your things?

The cop does not want to search your car because he likes you. He is telling you that he wants to arrest you. He just has not found or planted a reason to arrest you yet.

Labels: War On Drugs

George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Newt Gingrigh, Al Gore, and most college students have smoked marijuana. Should they all have been incarcerated?

We once believed in limited government. Now we try and incarcerate our way to utopia. I am embarrased by these arrest numbers. But I was once part of the problem.

I prosecuted many POM cases. I never believed that these laws were keeping us safer. I just treated it as part of my job. I told myself that I did not write the laws, I only enforced them. I was merely an agent for my boss, the elected DA. I dismissed and deferred many pot cases when I had the discretion. But I also saw many cannabis consumers in jail for violating probation or because they could not make bail.

One day this policy will change. We will end the fear based rhetoric and embrace freedom. The organized criminals will be put out of business by corporations selling pot. Law abiding cannabis consumers will continue to lead productive lives without fear of arrest.

Until then, if you get high, don't get caught, or call me if you do.

Labels: DEA, Marijuana, War On Drugs

Who cares if adults use steroids? Is it wrong only because it is illegal? Is that the moral justification to ruin lives with incarceration?

A fellow Texas Tech law grad, Karen Tandy, runs the DEA. Watch her try and justify this "bust" by pointing out externalities that are caused by Prohibition.

"Today we reveal the truth behind the underground steroid market: dangerous drugs cooked up all too often in filthy conditions with no regard to safety, giving Americans who purchase them the ultimate raw deal," DEA Administrator Karen Tandy said in a statement.
Authorities made arrests .

If you want to use steroids that is fine. I have no reason to object to your steroid use. I am upset about Barry Bonds ruining baseball, but only because he lies about it. Therefore, I do not watch any Giant's games. I boycott Barry Bonds instead of calling for the federal government to arrest him.

Athlete's bodies are just a tool they use for work, like my copier/scanner/fax. If they need steroids and want to assume that risk, let them.

Labels: DEA

DWI field sobriety tests are performed just like Jeopardy. You see the answer to the field sobriety tests in that the officer attempts to perform them for you (although they routinely make mistakes). But the officer never tells you what the question is; suspects are never told what they will be graded on.

For example, in the One Leg Stand Test the NHTSA manual tells officers to count the following as clues the suspect is intoxicated-

The suspect sways while balancing. This refers to side-to-side or back and forth motion while the suspect maintains the one-leg stand position. Uses arms for balance. Suspect moves arms 6 or more inches from the side of the body in order to keep balance. Hopping. Suspect is able to keep one foot off the ground, but resorts to hopping in order to maintain balance. Puts foot down. The suspect is not able to maintain the one-leg stand position, putting the foot down one or more times during the 30-second count.

Field Sobriety testing is fraudulent science that has been accepted for too long. DWI hysteria has eroded our rights to the point that we allow the police to make up evidence of intoxication.

DWI Jeopardy- Don't play it. Exercise your rights and call a lawyer before taking these fraudulent tests.

Labels: DWI

Example-You went to the movies this afternoon. You could have exercised, worked, mowed the lawn etc. Those missed opportunities are opportunity costs.

The War on Drugs has opportunity costs also. Every law enforcement resource wasted on Prohibition can not be used on anything else.

This leads me to the case of Roy Acthinson, a federal prosecutor who was recently arrested for trying to buy the right to have sex with a five year old. Roy specialized in asset forfeiture, or glorified stealing for the government.

All the time Roy and other federal prosecutors spent hunting drug dealers and users were not spent on hunting sicko child sex perverts, like Roy.

Everytime you see another huge drug bust, or another drug dog on the side of the road ask yourself this- Is this drug bust worth not pursuring murderers, rapists, terrorists, or child molestors?

With prohibition that is the choice we are making. The Drug Enforcement Admininstration has 11,000 employees. The Child Molestor Administration and Murder Administration have zero.

Opportunity costs, the price we all pay for failed prohibition.

Labels: War On Drugs

Attempts by defense counsel to obtain discovery are frequently thwarted by judges and prosecutors.

Defendants have less discovery rights than parties in a divorce case. Why? We are not prosecuting Al Qaeda in Texas State Court. There is no national security at stake. The State has no need for secret evidence.

Defense Counsel should not be at the mercy of the prosecutor and hope that an "open file" policy exists. Open file policies guarantee little. For example, many DA's office will let you "view" the file, but not copy it.

Texas has an embarassing record of convicting the innocent. Until we demand transparency in prosecution that will not change.

Coincidentally I just now noticed that Grits posted an article on Texas Discovery in the same hour that I posted this. Grits highlights a new report by The Justice Project that details the discovery problem in Texas and offers great solutions.

Labels: Prosecution

How does it work? Here is the operator manual.

Is it accurate? We don't really know. The State's Conviction machine runs on secret software that has not been independently reviewed for errors.

A similar breath test machine, the Draeger AlcoTest 7110, recently had it's source code revealed and analyzed. The findings are alarming. I predict the Intoxilyzer software will be found to be similarly flawed.

Labels: DWI

How do I respond? I do not believe in the moral superiority of law enforcement. I see the War on Drugs as an injustice. I see DWI enforcement as a threat to liberty. How could I not defend the victims of Prohibition or Neo Prohibition?

Furthermore, it is not my job to adjudicate guilt. Judges and juries pronounce such verdicts, not criminal defense lawyers. I present my client with options and advise. If my client believes himself guilty (or the evidence overwhelmingly points to guilt) I still seek the best outcome.

What truly scares me is defending the innocent. The idea that but for my representation a defendant could be found guilty of something he/she did not do. The fear that a jury may side with law enforcement for the wrong reasons.

Defending the "guilty" is easy, defending the innocent is much harder.

The video was so outlandish I thought it may have been a hoax. However, here is the veryfying news story.

1. The State Can't Prove It At Trial-

Time-Older cases are harder to prosecute. This is especially true for cases with no video evidence. Set if for trial see who shows up and who remembers what.

Witness Problems- The State's star witness could get arrested, die, move to Canada, change their story or simply not show up for court. This applies to cops also.

2. No one cares if you did it-

When a victim will not cooperate with the State or there is no victim (drug cases).

3. Someone else did it-

Get your Sherlock Holmes hat on and solve the case. Believe it or not, telling the prosecutor that you did not commit a crime is not enough. They want to know who really did it and they expect you to find out.

Labels: Prosecution

Unfortunately the "convictions are wins, dismissals are losses" mentality seems to take precedent over idealistic notions of justice.

Today's example is from the TDCAA message board-Here is the question.

Trooper stops vehicle for failure to signal when entering highway. (Vehicle merged into traffic). Defendant cites to State v. Ballman, 157 S.W.3d 65 (Fort Worth, 2004), drive not required to signal entering highway from private lot. As vehicle is pulling off road, trooper notes temporary paper tag has expired.Question: Can the state rely on the second PC? Any caselaw would be welcome.

Labels: Prosecution

Here are some press release "toolkits" from StopImpairedDriving.org. These toolkits contain ready made press releases for all kinds of fun events including-

Sobriety Checkpoints
High Profile Arrests
Ignition Interlock Devices
Enhanced Enforcement

These press releases even come with ready made quotes from law enforcement.

Here is an example-“The law does not discriminate,” said [Law Enforcement Official]. “Whether you are a high profile citizen or an average Joe, if you are caught committing a crime you will be held responsible for the legal consequences of your actions.”

The press releases are pretty formulaic. Here is the recipe for Neo Prohibitionist propoganda.

1. Talk about death and fatalities. You don't want people to die on the road, do you?
2. Tell drivers they WILL get arrested. It's not true, but its sounds scary.
3. Throw in tough sounding ready made quote from law enforcement.
4. Ignore the fact that innocent drivers will be detained and arrested, that cops often let fellow cops go for DWI, and that the .08 BAC level does not save lives.

That's it. Now you are ready to justify your own Neo Prohibitionist Police State Crackdown on the Bill of Rights, er... drunk driving.

Labels: DWI

Today's subchapter is called "Crossing the Defendant", it should have been called "guilty until proven innocent." Prosecutors are taught to spin or ignore evidence of innocence.

- ADA's are taught to work out a "time line" of that day's events with the defendant. Why? Because there is "no credible way the defendant could have kept track of that, so you will either succeed in showing their no memory of times, or he has an overdeveloped memory."

- What should a prosecutor do if the defendant does not look intoxicated on the video? Drop the charge? Of course not. Argue that the defendant only looks good because of the adrenaline brought on by arrest.

- If the defendant claims the officer was abusive ask the defendant why he/she did not file a complaint with the police department.

- Ask the defendant how often he usually drinks. For regular drinkers argue that the defendant has a high tolerance and would not know if he is drunk. If he is not a regular drinker then argue he would not know his own limits.

Labels: DWI, Prosecution

TDCAA had a recent discussion on the issue. The issue was, could those with needles be charged with possession or delivery of drug paraphenalia?

Those bleeding heart liberals, the Islamic Republic of Iran, started a needle program two years ago to fight AIDS. Let's compare the sentiments of Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley with his counterparts in Iran.

Iran Says- "This was a very crucial step," said Ali Hashemi, director of Iran's Drug Control Headquarters, a cabinet-level office. "Inevitably we have to do this in order to reduce the risk of AIDS."

John Bradley says- "Can we prosecute for possession of the trace amount of illegal drugs in the needles? Or, is the defendant also getting immunity for that felony, too?"

Iran Says- Arch-conservative Ayatollah Mohammed Esmail Shoshtari recently ordered prosecutors to defer to the nation's Health Ministry in the fight against AIDS. "It's ironic that Iran, very fundamentalist, very religious -- very religious -- has been able to convince itself" to embrace such policies, said Bijan Nasirimanesh, who operates a drug clinic near Tehran.

John Bradley says- (on why those with needles should not be immune from prosecution) "That would mean that any program, even those that are clearly illegal, are justified because an individual draws the conclusion that he/she is doing some greater social good. Seems to me that some anti-abortionists have attempted to use that defense when trespassing on clinics or even when shooting doctors. What is the distinction?"

Labels: Prosecution, Texas, War On Drugs