Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

You had a trial, you were found guilty, and your defense lawyer didn't meet your expectations. She may have slept through trial, been drunk, or failed to present any evidence at all. What remedy does a defendant have for such a situation? An appeal or Writ claiming Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
If you want to argue IAOC on appeal your lawyer's performance must have violated constitution standards. For this the Texas courts apply a test from the Strickland vs. Washington case.

From a recent Dallas Court of Appeals Case

We examine ineffective assistance of counsel claims by the standard set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and adopted by Texas in Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 56-57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Appellant has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence (1) trial counsel's performance was deficient in that it fell below the prevailing professional norms, and (2) the deficiency prejudiced the defendant; in other words, but for the deficiency, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). We examine the totality of counsel's representation to determine whether appellant received effective assistance but do not judge counsel's strategic decisions in hindsight; rather, we strongly presume counsel's competence. Id. Any allegation of ineffectiveness must be firmly founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness. Id.

It's not enough that you lost the case. Not every guilty verdict, or losing legal argument, means that your attorney was ineffective.

It's also not enough that you disagree with your attorney's choices at trial. Attorneys get wide discretion to make strategic decisions at trial. Which witnesses to call, what questions to ask, what arguments to make- will rarely be questioned by appellate judges.

It's also not enough that your attorney made a mistake. Your attorney must make a mistake that is well below the standard for defense attorneys, and that mistake must prejudice your rights. Many mistakes are deemed "harmless" error.

It's not an easy standard to make, and most ineffective claims are denied.

Specialized courts are all the rage. We have DWI courts, Drug Courts, and more recently a new speicalized court for prostitutes. DMN reports

Dallas court helping put prostitution in the past

06:41 AM CDT on Tuesday, October 28, 2008

By TIARA M. ELLIS / The Dallas Morning News
tellis@dallasnews.com

These days, Cheryl Sneed dresses more like a church lady than a lady of the night. She's been both.

But for the last two months Mrs. Sneed and about 20 other former prostitutes have given up selling their bodies in exchange for freedom.

"These women have been where I've been," said Mrs. Sneed, 49. "We were all in the bottom of life, in the depths of hell out there in those streets. This program has been a miracle to me."

The program to which Mrs. Sneed refers is called STAR Court, which stands for Strengthening, Transition and Recovery. State District Judge Lana Myers started it in July to help get habitual prostitutes off the streets. The women usually meet in her Dallas courtroom on Monday afternoons to talk about their progress and their setbacks.

It is believed to be the only such "prostitution court" in the state.

What isn't discussed is if prostitution should be legalized. After all, even Dallas SWAT members enjoy the company of professional escorts.

Texas Prostitution Laws
In Texas, prostitution is a misdemeanor with the possibility of up to 6 months in the county jail.
From the Texas Penal Code

Sec. 43.02. PROSTITUTION.
(a) A person commits an offense if he knowingly:
(1) offers to engage, agrees to engage, or engages in sexual conduct for a fee; or
(2) solicits another in a public place to engage with him in sexual conduct for hire.
(b) An offense is established under Subsection (a)(1) whether the actor is to receive or pay a fee. An offense is established under Subsection (a)(2) whether the actor solicits a person to hire him or offers to hire the person solicited.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor...

It is the commercial aspect that makes prostitution illegal. This activity is legal unless done for a fee, or "for hire". Kind of a strange line for morality.In the age of craigslist and internet escorts the streetwalker stereotypes are changing rapidly. Do we still want cops busting johns and hookers when Dallas has a lousy 6% crime clearance for burglaries?

Opportunity costs aside; should this conduct be constitutionally protected? In Lawrence vs. Texas SCOTUS struck down the Texas sodomy laws finding a right for adults to engage in consensual sexual activity. Shouldn't the same logic apply to commercial sex?

From SCOTUS

[The State of Texas] seeks to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons

I've had some recent DWI cases plead to Obstruction of a Highway. In each case my client was charged with a DWI, and the case had problems. The choice was between having a DWI jury trial, or pleading guilty to Obstruction.

What is Obstructing a Highway? Read this earlier post.

I usually, if not always, recommend taking the Obstruction plea rather than go to trial on the DWI.

Why?

1. A DWI Lasts Forever
In the past, a DWI conviction had a ten year limitation for enhancement. That is, if you got 3 DWI's that were each 11 years apart, the State couldn't enhance your case to a felony (DWI 3rd is a felony in Texas).

Not any more. The lege changed the law so that a DWI conviction can be used against your FOREVER. That is, if you get a DWI in 2008, and another in 2028; then the original 2008 conviction will be used to "enhance" your 2028 case. That is, the punishment is worse (from Class B to Class A misdemeanor). Every client I've had with a DWI charge states they will never drink and drive again. However, forever is a long time.

2. Surcharge
A few years ago a doltish majority in Austin found a great way to balance the budget. Instead of cutting spending the lege invented millions of dollars in revenue from "surcharges" they would collect from those convicted of DWI. In theory those convicted of DWI are supposed to pay at least $1,000 a year to keep their license. In practice, most of these fees are never collected.

These "surcharges" should be unconstitutional (double jeopardy) in that they punish a person twice for the same offense. DWI suspects already face fines, fees, court costs, and forced donations to MADD (victim impact class). Unfortunately Texas appellate courts are more than willing to justify constitutional violations in DWI cases.

By pleading to OAH, clients don't risk the possibility of paying thousands in extra "surcharges" just to keep their DL.

3. Jury Trials
One of the services I offer is taking an uncertain criminal situation and providing guidance and direction to my clients. I am in the certainty business. When my clients are offered and OAH plea I can guarantee the DWI will be dismissed (not expunged though). With a jury trial, there are few things I can guarantee. Most defendants aren't exited about the idea of having a jury trial. They would much rather take the certainty of an OAH charge.

Even with a strong case for the defense I can't guarantee a jury will find a client not guilty. The State has professional coached witnesses, and jurors are inundated with DWI propaganda. With those factors working against the innocent, an OAH plea can be a great resolution to a DWI case.

Texas has repealed most constitutional protections for DWI suspects. Texas also indoctrinates law enforcement and breath test "experts" with blood on the highway DWI propaganda.

The system forces DWI suspects to take the State's breath/blood/field sobriety tests, and the State's witnesses are taught that they must arrest more and convict more or people will die. Is anyone surprised when a DWI lab "expert" starts faking test results? After all, who cares about drunk drivers?

From the Dallas Morning News

Texas DPS says inspector faked records, jeopardizing 2,600 DWI cases

04:34 PM CDT on Friday, October 24, 2008
By EMILY RAMSHAW / The Dallas Morning News
eramshaw@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – At least 2,600 Houston-area DWI arrests are now in question, after a Department of Public Safety contractor failed to inspect breath analysis equipment – and faked records to show that she had.

Breath test instruments must be checked and calibrated once a month to ensure accuracy. DPS officials believe the contractor, whom they haven't identified, may have been falsifying inspection records for up to a year at eight Houston-area police departments.

She was not working in other parts of the state.

"Once DPS found reason to believe that these records had been altered, we suspended the supervisor's certification and opened up a criminal investigation,"said Col. Stan Clark, interim DPS director.

"These are serious allegations and we will not tolerate any activities that call into question the integrity of the breath test system"

This is why we need constitutional protections for all suspects, even alleged DWI drivers. You should have the right to an attorney before you take a breath test. After all, the State's intoxilyzer expert doesn't care if you get convicted with false evidence. The police certainly don't care if the breath test machine works or not. In Texas, we teach DWI officers NOT to learn how the breath machine works.

When we convict the innocent with phony evidence, we impugn the integrity of the criminal justice system. After all, why follow the law when the State will convict the innocent with phony evidence?

Have a loved one stuck in the Kaufman County Jail with bond set too high? Here is some information on the typical bond issues in Kaufman.

First, bail is set once a day in Kaufman, between 8-10AM. If you are unlucky enough to get arrested at noon, you may be stuck until the next morning. Our 4 JP judges rotate setting bail and follow a suggested bail schedule (I will post a copy tomorrow).

Once bail is set you can either post a cash bond (put up all the money yourself) or contact a bail bondsmen. In Texas attorneys can write bonds but it's not a service I offer. Bail bondsmen in Kaufman charge around 10% of the total bond. For example, if your bond is set at $5,000 you can either put up $5,000 in cash, or hire a bondsmen for around $500.

Your bond is your promise to appear in court at a future date. When your case is finished you will get back a cash bond, whereas you will not get back your money from a bondsmen.

Getting your bond lowered
For those with serious criminal charges, or an extensive criminal history, you may find your bond set higher than you wish. What happens in that situation?

If you can't make bail there are two ways to get your bond lowered- by agreement, or by a Writ. If the DA will agree to a bond reduction then the judge will usually sign an order lowering the bond. Many factors influence if the DA will agree to a bond reduction.

Barring agreement, you have to file a Writ of Habeas Corpus and have a hearing. A bond reduction hearing isn't a sure thing. The judge could raise your bail if she wanted to.

Examining Trial
In felony cases there is another option to escape jail that is not often used in Kaufman- the examining trial. These were much more popular a few years ago but seem to have gone out of style. An examining trial makes the state put on a minimum amount of evidence to keep you locked up. It is only available pre indictment. If you "win" an examining trial bond is not lowered, you are let go. However, if your case is later indicted you will get rearrested.

The Kaufman County Bar Association had a meeting last week, and... I missed it. I was in court in Ellis County. The topic of the day was the formation of a new UNT law school in Dallas. Here is UNT's proposal.

I am torn on this proposal between self preservation/legal profession concerns and my usual libertarian ideals (let the market sort things out).

Concern #1- Supply and Demand.
Adding another 100-200 new attorneys annualy to DFW will decrease the cost of legal services (our salaries may go down). When you raise the supply of a good/service, ceterus parabus, the price will go down. No attorney is exited about that.

My libertarian/free market response- The market should set prices. The price of legal services shouldn't be artificially raised by limiting supply. Established attorneys need to meet consumer demands, not rely on limited competition.

Concern #2- What kind of legal education will this be?
Not many new law schools begin with a reputation for quality. The public won't be served if UNT is turning out low quality attorneys. Here is a great article from temporary attorney on the proliferation of "toilet" law schools.

My LFM response- The consumer should be able to choose whatever attorney they want. If they want an SMU, TWU, UNT or Harvard attorney that is up to the consumer.

Concern #3- Whither Texas Tech?-
My alma mater Texas Tech gets a lot of students from DFW who are looking for a public school option in legal education. Will students go to Lubbock if they have a public school option in Dallas?

My LFM response- Texas Tech will have to compete with UNT and offer a better product. Students can choose TTU or UNT on the merits.

Concern #4- Wage Slave Attorneys
UNT could end up producing attorneys with huge debt and bleak job prospects. These UNT law grads should read temporary attorney (headline; Recent Law Grads- $12 per hour) for insight on their possible future. It seems the main beneficiary of the student loan/law school trap are the law schools.

My LFM response- Prospective law students should be able to make an educated cost/benefit analysis concerning a legal education. The federal student loan program is largely to blame for runaway school costs by removing elasticity from law school tuition prices. That is, colleges can raise tuition ad naseum without suffering a loss in applicants only because the government has made cheap loans available. In turn, law students end up with crushing debt, and a law degree.

So, am I for or against the UNT proposal?
Neither, we could solve all of these problems by simply moving Texas Tech School of Law to Dallas! Not really an option at this point, but why not?

I read most of the new criminal opinions from the Dallas Court of Appeals. Many defendants want to appeal not just their trial, but their sentence. A common example is a defendant who goes to the judge for punishment and receives a long jail sentence instead of probation.

The defendant will then claim the sentence is cruel and unusual punishment or that the judge abused her discretion. Ergo, the sentence is unconstitutional and should be changed.

Week after week I see these appeals denied for the same reason. The defendants do not object to the sentence when it is pronounced.

LESSON OF THE DAY:
If you are sentenced in a criminal case and you want to appeal said sentence you must OBJECT when the sentence is pronounced. If not, this is what the Dallas Court of Appeals will say.

Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). Even constitutional rights, including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, may be waived. Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Castaneda, 135 S.W.3d at 723.... We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Texas has a tradition of throwing out issues on appeal if the defense does not object on the record. Even worse, if the defendant objects; but not for the right reasons, then the error will still be waived on appeal. This doctrine allows many errors, even constitutional errors, to go without justice. This "waiver by omission" is a horrible practice, but it is very much the current appellate law in Texas.

A larger issue that may be addressed in the near future is- can a sentence that is within the range of punishment be unconstitutional? That is, if the sentencing possibilities range from probation to 99 years in jail, and you get 99 years, can that cruel and unusual or an abuse of discretion?

Texas' Drug Free Zone (DFZ) law is a testament to the failure of Prohibition. If our drug war worked special laws to keep drugs out of certain areas wouldn't be necessary. But I digress.

So what is a Drug Free Zone?
Basically in, on, or within 1,000 feet of premises owned, rented, or leased by an institution of higher learning, the premises of a public or private youth center, or a playground; or in, on, or within 300 feet of the premises of a public swimming pool or video arcade facility or on a school bus.

The DFZ fantasy is that cops are busting drug dealers who prey on innocent school children. In my experience most DFZ charges are brought against adults with a joint in their car 900 feet away from a prohibited area. Local cops quickly learn which roads are in a DFZ, and adjust their traffic stop/fishing for drugs activity accordingly.

What happens to a DFZ case?
This is fairly complicated. Basically, the punishments are increased. More jail time, probation can be denied, sentences can be stacked. Read this great article from TDCAA for more info.

Wait a minute, this law would make every college a drug free zone. I've been to college and it's no drug free zone.
Good observation. Since most legislators went to college, and/or have kids in college, some DFZ provisions don't apply to college campuses. For example, simple marijuana possession on a college campus doesn't fall under the DFZ law.

Wylie PD sent officers to storm a local body shop. What was the threat to the Wylie Community? A contraband rooster.

Having a rooster is apparently illegal in Wylie. I guess the only to handle such a threat is to send the police in with a warrant. What did the officers find upon entering the body shop? Nothing. The rooster had already been removed.

From the Star Telegram-

Sheriff's deputies early Friday arrested 15 people and seized 300 "eight-liner" gaming machines in what they say is their largest raid ever on illegal gambling sites in Tarrant County.

Readers of this blog know my disdain for victimless crime enforcement. If consenting adults want to place bets there is no reason to send the police in. What exactly was the Tarrant County Sheriff keeping us safe from? Apparently, the threat of winning cash from a slot machine.

"All five of these locations are violating the law by paying cash out to their customers as they win playing these slot machines," Chief Simonds said. "They may claim ignorance of the law but they know exactly what they're doing.

I don't know how Tarrant county residents slept at night knowing that individuals were being paid cash for winning bets. I guess these eight liner payouts are somehow much more dangerous than the hundreds of lottery ticket/scratch off payouts that happen every day in Tarrant County.

Texas law doesn't ban gambling, it just bans gambling that isn't run by the State (horse/dog tracks aside). The State hypocritically promotes lottery sales while arresting eight liner patrons.

When gambling is legalized Texans won't be forced to wager in illegal eight liner parlors (or Shreveport). Until then, law enforcement is working hard to protect our State's gambling monopoly.

Thanks to the TDCAA website for posting this memo from CPS. Recently, CPS was sued by two parents in Fort Bend County for numerous constitutional violations.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that CPS could be liable to future litigants (under a 1983 claim). Normally, the government grants itself immunity from lawsuits. However, the 5th Circuit held that CPS may not have immunity if they continue to violate the constitutional rights of parents. Rightfully, CPS is scared about the possibility of massive judgments against them. Hence this urgent memo to employees.

From the CPS memo-

On July 28, 2008, a federal appeals court with authority over Texas handed down a decision in a case that will be referred to as “the Gates case.” The decision is binding on Texas and because it involves federal constitutional rights, supersedes anything to the contrary in Texas law, or DFPS policy or practice.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Gates case is significant for two key reasons. First, it sets out a new standard that will require DFPS to obtain a court order prior to removal in a much larger proportion of our cases and affects whether we can transport or enter a home. Second, it is significant because it clarifies that if the standard is not followed, staff could be sued as individuals and lose qualified immunity, i.e., be responsible for monetary damages.

CPS may consider this a "new" standard. I disagree. The Constitution has been around longer than CPS. CPS shouldn't be surprised that it applies to them.

Consent Searches
Just like the police will ask for consent to search your car, CPS will ask for consent to search your home. This memo reminds CPS that they can not invade private residences without a court order, consent, or emergency.

Parents, read this section and learn these rules. If CPS wants to enter your home it is not to help you. Call an attorney to protect your rights.

I

V. ENTERING AND REMAINING IN A HOME

A. SUMMARY

As with removals, in order to gain entry into a home for the purpose of a CPS investigation, we must have one of the following: 1) exigent circumstances, 2) consent, or 3) a court order, but the Gates ruling provided additional explanation concerning exigent circumstances and consent that will affect our practices.

NOTE: even if we do have exigent circumstances to enter a home, it may be more appropriate for safety reasons to call law enforcement to gain entry.

Current Practice: CPS enters a family’s home only if we have exigent circumstances, consent, or a court order. CPS does not always ensure consent is specific to our investigators. A court order in aid of investigation is rarely utilized.

New Practice: As with removals, exigent circumstances are present only where there is immediate danger to a child in the home, i.e. life or limb is in immediate jeopardy. Consent must be clear, unequivocal, voluntary and given specifically to CPS, as opposed to law enforcement. We will likely increase the use of court orders in aid of investigation.

One sentence sticks out. CPS will increase the use of court orders. That is a great idea. Instead of taking children first, and then going to court; CPS should actually investigate, then go to court for a removal. Of course, if this turns into a rubber stamp situation like DWI blood search warrants, then again there will be no justice.

More on the consent guidelines below the fold....

Continue reading " Texas CPS Memo "Quit violating the Constituion, or we could be sued!" " »

The Cherry Pit prosecution has reached a new low. Not content with mere code violations the police have invented an organized crime charge. This new charge carries a possible sentence of 99 years in jail. From DMN

According to the arrest warrant affidavits for Jim Trulock, 59, and Julie M. Norris, 30, the pair runs the Cherry Pit more like a business, with employees, staff meetings and donations that totaled more than $102,000 over 16 months.

The Duncan ville police department’s investigation accuses them of operating a sex club, possessing large amounts of alcohol, promoting prostitution and engaging in organized crime and money laundering.

Ed Klein, the attorney for Mr. Trulock and Ms. Norris, said the city is harassing the couple in an effort to run them out of town.

“They want to prolong the abuse,” Mr. Klein said. “Just when Jim and Julie make sure it’s OK to sit down and have a quiet dinner at home, they’re going to pounce on them every chance they get.”

On Thursday, Duncanville authorities arrested Mr. Trulock on suspicion of organized crime, a first-degree felony. One day later, officials arrested Ms. Norris on the same charge. If convicted on the organized crime charge, the pair could serve five to 99 years or life in prison and pay a fine not exceeding $10,000.

Most Texans are not swingers. Like the polygamists in West Texas this is a distinct subculture unfamiliar to the majority of Texans. Like the polygamists in West Texas this group is subject to persecution.

Even if you disagree morally with the events at the CP you should oppose this abuse of power.
Why? Ask yourself where the victim is in this case? There isn't one. The government alleges alcohol violations, code violations, and a laughable prostitution charge.

No one is claiming that anything other than consensual behavior happened at the CP.

Now ask yourself, what kind of conduct should carry a life sentence? Most of us could agree that life sentences should be reserved for those who actually harm others.

In a simpler time the Bill of Rights and Texas Constitution limited the ability of petty tyrants to destroy an individual. Today, with less freedom than ever, the police can turn code violations into a possible 99 year sentence.

Why has the Duncanville city councils decided to destroy the CP and the individuals involved?

First they came for the swingers...
Politicians often attack the politically powerless. In this case the city invented new laws just to shut down the CP. It's a cheap way for politicians to appear like they are "doing something."

You Can Beat The Rap, But You Can't Beat The Ride
Even if these individuals avoid a conviction the cost and stress of litigation is enough to ruin these defendants. It's not worth it. We need to reexamine the role of government in controlling the private behavior of Texans. Lest we legitimize the destruction of the politically powerless.

Texas has some stupid laws. Unfortunately Texas also has legislators who lack the courage or wisdom to repeal stupid laws. Instead, Texans must rely on federal courts, or even the Supreme Court to declare our stupid laws unconstitutional.

One such stupid law bans the "promotion" (sale) of dildos.

§ 43.23. OBSCENITY. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing its content and character, he wholesale promotes or possesses with intent to wholesale promote any obscene material or obscene device.

An obscene device is a dildo, vibrator etc. Of all the things to waste law enforcement resources on, dildo prohibition is probably the most useless (marijuana would be a close second).

This brings us to a recent decision by the 13th District Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi-

Villareal vs. State
Facts (from the court's opinion)-

On June 25, 2004, Corpus Christi Police Officer Adrian Dominguez was working undercover when he visited a business, called Friends 4 Ever, to determine if it was selling obscene materials or devices. Dominguez was aware that law enforcement agents had previously informed the business owner that the business needed to cease selling certain items that were considered obscene under state law. Appellant was at the business working as a cashier and sales clerk. During the visit, Dominguez purchased a vibrator from appellant; the vibrator was called "Lick it Lover" and resembled the male sexual organ. A few hours after Dominguez's purchase, police officers arrived at the business, where they executed a search warrant and placed appellant under arrest.

You would think that a city with twice the national average for property crime, and 21 murders annually could find a better use of their undercover police. But I digress. A jury found Villareal guilty, and the judge sentenced her to 6 months in county jail!

Wait a minute, wasn't that law declared unconstitutional?
That's right. The federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction in February declaring 43.23 unconstitutional. However, the Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi held that a federal court injunction is not binding on State courts. That is, until our state's highest criminal court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, rules that 43.23 is unconstituional, the conviction still stands.

Now, it's clear that the judges in Corpus recognize how untenable their position is. In their own words.

This Court thus remains duty-bound, for better or worse, to follow the rulings of the court of criminal appeals, which has held--in contrast to the Fifth Circuit--that section 43.23 does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, for now, the promotion of dildos is illegal in Texas, again.

Another legislative session brings another request by MADD for DWI roadblocks. The Texas lege has rejected this bad idea for 10 years. However, MADD hopes this year is different. From DMN

"This could be the year," said Mary Kardell, the executive director of the North Texas branch of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, referring to renewed efforts to legalize sobriety checkpoints... "There is so much outrage right now."

What is a DWI roadblock? Normally, the police must have reasonable suspicion to stop your car. That is, they must reasonably believe that you have committed any one of the hundreds of possible traffic infractions before pulling you over. This is an embarrassingly low standard.

Not low enough for MADD. MADD wants to let the police stop all drivers without cause, and then make the drivers prove they are sober and that they have their papers in order. This is MADD's America, where DWI enforcement trumps freedom. MADD has already taken away your right to counsel, your right to a fair trial, your right to remain silent. MADD is betting you won't mind giving up another minor constitutional protection.

MADD is selling the promise of safety and only asking for a little freedom in return.

Roadblocks don't work!
The best reason to oppose police roadblocks is that they do not work. Here is a great quote from DUIblog.com

According to MADD’s own website, 40 states have checkpoints and 10 do not. Well, it would be interesting to compare the states with the highest percentage of alcohol-related fatalities with the list of states not using checkpoints: If MADD is correct, the states with the highest fatality rates will be the no-roadblock states. Fortunately, another section of MADD’s website provides such statistics for each of the states. The 5 states with the highest alcohol-related fatality rates:

Hawaii
Nevada
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina

According to MADD, all 5 states should be non-checkpoint states. In fact, however, 4 of these states use checkpoints; only Rhode Island does not. Well, what about the 5 states with the lowest fatality percentages? They are:

Georgia
Kentucky
Indiana
Iowa
New York

If MADD is correct about the effectiveness of checkpoints, these should all be checkpoint states. But as with the previous list, only 4 of the states permit the use of sobriety checkpoints; Iowa does not. As with the previous list, the percentage is what one would expect from pure random incidence: 20% of the states (10 of 50) do not have checkpoints — and 20% of the states on each list (1 of 5) do not use checkpoints. There appears to be no correlation between fatality rates and the use of checkpoints.

Pulling over every driver for a random search is not law enforcement. It's police state idiocy to believe that we are safer when the police waste time harassing innocent motorists.

Note to roadblock supporters- If you want to stop DWI then you want the police out looking for drunk drivers!

Finally, roadblocks are always abused by law enforcement. What starts as a limited search for drunk drivers always turns into fishing expeditions for contraband. Another disturbing trend; police often record the information of every motorist stopped. Big brother then compiles a database of who travels in the "wrong" neighborhoods.

MADD comes to Austin every two years selling safety, and asking for freedom. Don't be afraid to say no to petty tyrants with bad ideas.

UPDATE- The hearing was can celled and will be pushed into 2009.

Quick recap-
The Collin County DA subpoenaed a defense attorney to testify and produce evidence against his client before the grand jury. The attorney Keith Gore challenged that subpoena with a motion to quash. There was a hearing set on the motion for March 4th of 2008.

Before the hearing the State issued a search warrant for Mr. Gore's office. The police raided Mr. Gore's office on February 29th, 2008 seizing documents and other items.

Mr. Gore filed a motion to recuse the DA's office from prosecuting the case. After all, the District Attorney/Police had access to Mr. Gore's work product, defense file etc. Allowing the DA to now prosecute Mr. Gore's client should be unconstitutional, even in Texas. Did I mention the State is trying to kill Mr. Gore's client?

The State, wanton hubris in tact, filed this motion to have Mr. Gore removed from the case. The State claims that they had to raid Mr. Gore's office because allegedly (according to the DA) Mr. Gore stated he wouldn't testify or produce evidence against his client!!!

This is a hollow justification. That issue was set for a hearing on March 4th. Instead, the Collin County DA's office chose to forgo the adversarial process with the search warrant. After all, why waste time arguing the law in court when you can just send the police into a defense lawyer's office?

These motions are set for hearing on October 10th at 9AM at the 416th District Court in Collin County. I encourage you to come and support Mr. Gore, attorney/client privilege, and the Bill of Rights.