Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The DWI roadblock bill has passed through the Senate is working it's way through the House as I type this. The roadblock, I mean "checkpoint" bill is SB 298.

So how much security are we getting for our freedom?
From DMN and State Senator John Carona (R-Dallas)

"We're not taking anyone's rights away. We're trying to make sure my right and your right to drive safely is protected," Carona said....

Checkpoints could save 300 lives a year in Texas, Carona said, citing federal highway safety experts.

I beg to differ. In fact, you are taking away this right

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..

and replacing it with a new "right" to be stopped without cause and forced to prove yourself not intoxicated. I've searched the US and Texas constitution for the "right to drive safely" and I couldn't find it. Maybe John can show me where he go that from.

What's in 298?
There are limitations on these these random suspicionless searches of Texas drivers. They are only allowed in counties over 250,000. Only one a year per location. The police have to stop cars at random (every third or fourth etc). Here are some other "protections" that caught my attention.

From 298-

(i) A peace officer at the sobriety checkpoint may not
require a motor vehicle operator to perform a sobriety test unless
the officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe
that the operator is in violation of Section 49.04 or 49.045, Penal
Code. A peace officer who requires or requests an operator to
provide a specimen of breath, blood, or urine must comply with
Chapter 724, Transportation Code.

(j) Unless a peace officer has reasonable suspicion or
probable cause to detain a motor vehicle operator for a criminal
offense, the time during which an officer makes an inquiry of an
operator should not exceed three minutes, and the total time during
which the operator must wait to pass through the checkpoint should
not exceed 10 minutes. The law enforcement agency shall make
reasonable efforts to reduce these periods to not more than one and
five minutes, respectively.

On a side note, SWAT home invasion searches have less statutory requirements than a roadblock. But that's for a different post.

Notice the weasel word "should". "Shall not exceed three minutes" would actually mean something. "Should" is a suggestion, and I predict the appellate courts will treat it as such. If there really was a three minutes limitation why not just lock the windows and refuse to cooperate for 3 minutes?

The only "shall" requirement is to take "reasonable efforts" to keep these between one and five minutes. I don't expect zealous enforcement of that requirement by our appellate courts.

Prediction 1- I predict the standard for reasonable suspicion at a roadblock is going to become; "slurred speech, odor of alcoholic beverage, and bloodshot eyes." Those are three most common boilerplate signs of "intoxication" listed in police reports. And, what else can you observe from a driver sitting in a vehicle?

Prediction 2- When Senator Corona's 300 fatality reduction doesn't materialize a new "tougher" DWI checkpoint bill will be drafted doing away with the already anemic "protections" this bill offers. Once you get the public used to roadblocks, it's a much easier sell to get "tougher" at roadblocks. Why not demand a breath sample of every driver? Or a blood sample? Or make all drivers take SFSTs?

Prediction 3- Once we legalize random suspicionless searches there will be a call to expand to other causes du jour. It won't be long until another "crisis" demands it's own version of a checkpoint.

Why not look for illegal immigrants at a checkpoint? Why not search for drugs at a checkpoint? Why not search for sex offenders at a checkpoint? Why not search for terrorists, nuclear weapons, illegal handguns or illegal sex toys at a checkpoint? Why limit this to cars? Let's search passengers on the DART rail. Or search private homes for drugs, child pornography, or "passion parties".

Do roadblocks work? Depends on what the goal is. Even MADD admits the "primary" goal of a checkpoint is deterrence. From MADD.org

The point of a checkpoint is to deter primarily and to enforce the law when required. Sobriety checkpoints are higher visibility and raise the perceived risk of getting caught more than do roving patrols or saturation patrols.

MADD is right. They can scare the shit out of Texas drivers by stopping every car without reason and treating each driver like a criminal. Does that mean we should engage in big brother security theater? Using fear to change public behavior has catalyzed the shift from peace officers to law enforcement.

Do roadblocks prevent fatalities?
Probably not. In fact roadblocks have proven so ineffective (and so expensive) that communities are calling to end them.

And why would we expect roadblocks to reduce fatalities? If you want stop dangerous drivers cops should patrol the roads looking for dangerous driving behavior. If you want to randomly harass the public, then put up a roadblock.

Me on the radio-
I was just interviewed by ridindirtyradio.com about Texas checkpoints. I have to say it made me fairly nervous to be on the air. I had not been on the radio since the summer of 2002 when I did a few shifts for the Texas Tech student radio. (Keep it locked to the left, 88.1 FM).

I was on with Ken and Heidi aka ridin dirty radio, 830 AM in Los Angeles. I probably talked way too fast to make any sense. We discussed the roadblock bill, the driving culture in Texas, and the role parents could play in preventing DWI.

They asked if the Texas-OU game would have a checkpoint. I stated that I doubted the alumni would allow it. My guess that there will be an inverse relationship between political influence and roadblocks. Can you see Jerry Jones allowing a checkpoint outside his new stadium? Right.

NO NO NO.
Never, ever, for any reason, go to the police station (or sheriff's department) and make a statement. If the police have called and asked you to come to the station quit reading this and find a criminal defense lawyer now.

"Won't the police think I'm guilty if I get a lawyer?

I hate to break this to you, but the police already think you are guilty. In fact, they know you are guilty. They just want a nice confession before sending your file to the DA.

Detectives know they can make you confess, they just need the chance. Don't take my word for it, here is a cop telling you how he can got suspects to confess.

I have often wondered why so many suspects voluntarily drive down to a police station, sign Miranda waivers, and put up with all sorts of good cop bad cop nonsense before confessing. Allow me to speculate.

1. Naivety. They don't have any experience with the criminal justice system. There is a common belief, and a desire to believe, that law enforcement wants to help us. Another popular misnomer is that non cooperation will somehow hurt their case, or that they have no choice but to cooperate.

2. Good cop. A detective may tell you he wants to get "your side of the story" or just "ask you a few questions." Don't buy it.

3. Bad cop/Threats/Fear. Detectives will threaten to file more serious charges, let the judge/DA know you weren't cooperating, or issue a warrant and arrest you if don't come and talk to them right now!

4. Hubris/"I'm smarter than these cops". The police are going to stick you in a room with the implication that you can't leave and run through their interrogation manual until you confess. If you deny wrongdoing they will take your story and begin investigating how it can't possibly be true. This isn't Seven, or Silence of the Lambs. You are not going to make the police your pawn in a psychological crime thriller.

5. "Only guilty people confess, I"m not guilty so I'm fine." Not quite. Law enforcement techniques have advanced to the point that the innocent confess to crimes.
Why Do Innocent People Confess- Psych Central
When an Innocent Confesses- Scientific American
Why do the innocent confess to crimes?- Grits for Breakfast

Defense lawyers need to do a better job educating the public on what police threats/requests they must adhere to, and which they can refuse. For example, you have to ID yourself in a traffic stop, you don't have to consent to a search of the car etc. We have given police so much arbitrary unilateral authority that much of the public believes they must cooperate in their own prosecution. Not so. If the police are calling you about a crime quit reading this, and call an attorney.

Update- Somehow, I forgot the excellent work FlexYourRights.Org has done teaching the public how to handle police encounters.

For the first time in my legal career I completed a county courthouse trifecta. I made an appearance in 3 different county courthouses in one day. This made me wonder what the record is for most county courthouses visited in a day? It can't be more than 4. All this travel has sapped my blogging energy. Instead of talking about the crazed Dallas ER cop or Sharon Keller, I'll offer a travelogue.

Collin County
Friday morning, I had a plea in Collin County. I live in Ennis (home of Polka Fest) which is about 65 miles away. Fog and speed traps slowed traffic on I-45. Traffic actual improved once I hit 75. I lamented over the suburban sprawl big box strip mall sameness that is southern Collin County and arrived in McKinney at 9:15.

I entered the courtroom and approached the ADA to discuss the plea deal we had worked out and..... the file wasn't in the courtroom. The ADA quickly dispatched an assistant to recover said file so we could finalize justice in this case.

"Are you an attorney?"
While waiting patiently in the courtroom the young man next to me inquired into my vocation. "Are you an attorney?"

I know that some lawyers dread the AYAA line. Personally, I don't mind helping pro se defendants avoid making horrible life altering decisions. My usual advise is- go hire a defense attorney (or ask for court appointed counsel), don't tell the ADA anything about your case, and don't accept a plea bargain without counsel.

After affirming that I was indeed a defense lawyer this defendant asked "Do you handle marijuana cases?" This had some personal comedic value. I skipped the opportunity to explain my marijuana defense credentials or direct this defendant to my numerous blog posts on the subject. Instead, I answered succinctly in the affirmative.

This defendant had been denied court appointed counsel and wanted to present two defenses to the ADA, an equity/de minimus argument and actual innocence. I explained that the Collin County DA has a less than progressive view towards pot cases. By that time my file had been retrieved so I told this defendant to call Hunter Biederman.

My plea was quickly finalized and I was on my way to Dallas.

Dallas
I arrived in Dallas at 11:00. I needed to pass a case, visit with an ADA on another case, and fix an earlier judgment that contained an error. This was largely uneventful.

To maximize my efforts I used the escalators. I usually employ the stairs at the Crowley center in an attempt to work some semblance of exercise into my daily routine. If you ever see me ordering a DWI video or visiting the special crimes unit (both are on the 11th floor) and I appear near cardiac arrest, this is why.

Sushi Sapporro Closed?
Around noon I emerged victorious ready to eat lunch at my favorite sushi lunch buffet, Sushi Sapporro on Oak Lawn. To my great shock and disappointment there was a sign on the door that the restaurant had violated their lease terms and was closed. Lunch fail.

Kaufman
Finally, I had to go to Kaufman to visit the DA on an upcoming DWI suppression (this should be an obstruction) and pick up some documents from the district clerk. Finally, I returned to my office, answered a dozen or so emails, returned some phone calls, and met with a potential client, who became an actual client.

My day was finished and I actually left work early, around 4:30 pm.

Kaufman county needs a new courthouse. Why? First, the current building is too small to handle the growing population. The courthouse was designed for two courtrooms, but now houses four courts. There are no public restrooms upstairs, no attorney client meeting area anywhere (we use the very narrow and cramped hallways) the government offices are beyond cramped, the security area with the metal detectors was an ad hoc development that creates a pedestrian bottleneck for jurors, the law library is also the felony jury deliberation room etc, etc.

Another reason to embrace change is the courthouse's complete lack of aesthetic appeal. This sad blue cube doesn't evoke traditional Texas courthouse grandeur like say, the Ellis county courthouse. On the contrary, Kaufman's courthouse recently doubled as a mental hospital for a tv pilot (starring Dylan McDermott, it was never picked up).

It's one thing for lawyers to complain, it's another to generate voter support. The voters have spoken before, and soundly rejected spending their tax dollars on a new courthouse. Undeterred, the county commissioners may have found a way to build a new courthouse without voter approval- certificates of obligation. Tread carefully here pols.

According to Thomas M. Pollan, an attorney for the Austin-based firm of Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta, the county has four funding options available, but of those only three are advisable and only one would allow for a more expedient construction schedule... “Of those, issuing general obligation bonds would require an election, which would not be able to placed on a ballot until November. Certificates of obligation would require publishing intent in the newspaper and a 30-day waiting period.”

From what I've been told, certificates of obligation can be spent on "law enforcement" buildings without voter approval. Why? Traditionally, voters have been less than receptive to using tax dollars to build new digs for criminals. Makes sense. (Note: This is conjecture, I don't have time to research the government code to verify).

The county jail is off 175 in a field of mesquite trees, completely disconnected from the rest of the town. Moving the criminal courts to that location would save the county thousands in transportation costs. Right now jail chain inmates are carried over in vans required multiple deputies. Building a new jail is expensive, but so is government inmate taxi service.

Local attorneys are nervous that such a move would "kill the square." They may be right. But that ship sailed when the new jail was built so far from downtown. It's inevitable that the courthouse is going to move and part of the legal culture on the square will be lost. Such is progress.

The drug war is working so well we should consider expansion. Forget the salvia debate. Think broader. Why should we limit prohibitionist zealotry to actual drugs? If only we could expand the WOD to ban products named after street drugs.

From the AG's website

Court prohibits the selling of a drink marketed as street drug alternative in Texas

DALLAS – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has resolved the state’s enforcement action against the sellers of the energy drink, “Cocaine.” Under the judgment, the product cannot be sold in the state of Texas and all Internet marketing must disclose that the product is not available in Texas. Because Redux Beverages L.L.C. failed to appear in court, the judge entered a judgment and permanent injunction with civil penalties of $825,000.

A "street drug alternative", really? Cocaine is not a fungible good. Dealers/users aren't turning to energy drinks when they run out of blow. And they don't have to. While "Cocaine" the energy drink has been banned, the real version remains readily available across Texas.

Also, shouldn't the AG want users to abandon the real thing for New Coke? The WOD would be a farce if not for the abundant tragedy.

Your case is set for jury trial. The ADA makes a final plea offer (Offer A) to your defense lawyer.Your defense lawyer informs you that the offer was Offer B (Offer B is Offer A plus more fines, jail time, etc) but that he/she had worked the ADA down to Offer A.

I'll call this practice fake plea bargaining. I heard a story of an an alleged FPB incident. I lack personal knowledge of this event. All would agree this practice would be unethical. For this post let us examine motivation.

Why would a defense lawyer fake plea bargain? Allow me to speculate.

I would guess the primary motivation would be to get the client to take the deal. Rational choice theory tells us that defense lawyers, and defendants look to maximize utility and minimize costs. Trial has costs (time/stress) for lawyers. Also, a plea bargain saves an unprepared lawyer from being exposed.

Second, defense lawyers want to show value. Offer A may suck. But if the client thinks that their attorney helped them narrowly avoid Offer B, and that Offer A will soon disappear, then they are more inclined to not only take offer A, but leave satisfied with their attorney's work.

Every criminal defense lawyer has tirelessly worked a case that ended with the client accepting a plea offer close to the original offer.

Why? Sometimes our hard work uncovers that our clients have bad cases. Also, many DAs have strict guidelines for plea offers. Defendants may see this process as "I received this initial plea offer, and accepted this final plea offer, and I paid my lawyer $$$ for that?" This in no way justifies misrepresenting plea negotiations to a client. Pressure and disappointing outcomes are part of criminal defense practice. If you can't handle it, go into probate, don't fake plea bargain.

DMN columnist Tod Roberson supports the drug war because he can't understand how a legalization/decriminlization system would work. He knows that "tycoons", "world leaders" and "smart" people support ending Prohibition, but to Tod the "details don't add up." Specifically, Tod has 3 concerns he can't work through- addiction, cartels and wait for it..... the children.

Fortunately for Tod, DMN commenters have a much better grasp on the subject, and they are willing to answer his concerns. It's one of the better rhetorical smackdowns I've seen in a while. So good that I have nothing to add. Go read the column/comments for yourself. The public is moving ahead of old media on this one. Now we just have to wait on the politicians to get it.

DISD Fight Club
The national media has picked up on the DISD cage fighting scandal. Allegedly,students at a Dallas school were sent into a cage to settle their differences. From reason-

The Dallas school system was rocked by allegations Thursday that staff members at an inner-city high school made students settle their differences by fighting bare-knuckle brawls inside a steel cage.

The principal and other employees at South Oak Cliff High knew about the cage fights and allowed the practice to continue, according to a 2008 report by school system investigators.

Every year thousands of Texans plead guilty for deferred adjudication(DA) probation. A common fallacy among defendants, judges, prosecutors, and even some defense lawyers is that DA cases "won't be on your record", i.e. they can be expunged. Not true. In Texas, deferred cases can not be expunged. You can file a motion for non disclosure, but that is a marginal remedy at best. In most cases, a deferred plea will follow you forever.

A related misnomer is that a deferred case won't have an impact on your future. After all, the nomenclature of deferred cases can propagate misguided optimism. The "no finding of guilt", "no final conviction", "case will be dismissed" language leads most to believe that after probation they can move on with their lives.

Nary a week goes by without an email from someone who can't get a job, or a professional license, because of an old deferred case. Thousands of former defendants who dutifully fulfill their obligations and repay their "debt to society" are perpetually shackled.

Two bills, SB2075 and HB 2213 look to remedy this policy mistake.

HB 2213 and SB 2075 would
- allow for expunctions of deferred cases for defendants who complete probation and stay out of trouble
- forbid the government from denying licenses or permits to successful deferred probationers

DA defendants are often the most deserving of a second chance. Defendants with no criminal history and/or young adults facing drug charges routinely plead for DA. Finally, the State will often offer DA for serious charges when their case is weak, increasing the likelihood that an innocent defendant will take DA probation. If rehabilitation is still any part of our justice system then we should reward those who are rehabilitated.

H/T to Texas Association For Justice And Legal Reform

St. Patrick's, Old 97's, and Greenville
I spent my first St. Patty's on Greenville. My wife and a few friends attended the Old 97's concert at Energy Square (a parking lot on Greenville and University.)

Our group missed the parade, arriving at 3pm. We did catch the last of the parade goers leaving for their cars. I only saw one person throw up, and one person arrested. For all the complaints about the Greenville parade it seemed the vast majority was well behaved. There was an overwhelming police presence without much criminal presence. The level of law enforcement boredom approached TSA levels.

As for the show, at first I positioned myself close to the stage to rock with the real fans. I quickly bailed on that idea. The speaker placement made that area a distorted mess acoustically, like standing behind a jet engine. The further back we stood, the better the music sounded. We finally found a sweet spot at a table in front of the portable Hooters. The set list was predictably great and the band was in top form. A little cold weather kept the large crowds away, which to me is a plus. Overall, a great St. Patty's.

My only question- why were so many people wearing kilts? I thought kilts were Scottish.

My "friend" is 20 and his girlfriend is 17, is it legal for them to ___?
My earlier post on the age of consent in Texas has generated more than a few emails/comments asking if you or your "friend" will be in trouble if you date or know your romantic partner biblically etc. Most want to know if the "Romeo and Juliet" defense will save them from the clink. The volume of inquires makes me wonder if our public school's "just say no" abstinence only education is reaching every student.

First, I can't answer your question. That's legal advise, not something I can shoot off in a quick email or post in the comments section.

Second, even if the act of coitus is not criminal there are other laws you could be violating. Most people have never heard of the crime of "Enticting a Child". EAC sounds like a child molester sneaking children into his van. It's not.

EAC applies in any situation that "interferes" with child custody. For example- Your romantic partner's parents can call the police if you take your boy/girlfriend anywhere without their permission. Condoms may prevent STDs, but they won't stop DPD from arresting you.

Ron Paul vs. Stephen Baldwin- On Marijuana
If only cannabis prohibition apologists realized they all sound as ridiculous as Stephen. Is there even a debate left to be had on legalization?

I've spent many keystrokes railing against the SEO industry. From spam comments to fake link building these companies are heavy on pitch but short on credibility. Let me offer some hope for lawyers looing for internet marketing help.

Last year I decided to sell out and move from my gratis blogger account to a commercial lawyer blawg provider. After some deliberation I chose Justia. I was impressed with their portfolio and the broad range of legal information they provide the public. Justia is not cheap by any means, but it has been a solid investment. I would recommend Justia over any other SEO company for a few reasons.

1. They have never embarrassed me. No spam bots plaguing my colleagues blogs or splogs with spam links etc. I do have a strange presence on some "dog lawyer" website that Justia owns.. But I love dogs, and I'm a lawyer, so no problem.

2. They are hyper responsive. One reason I switched to a commercial provider was to abandon the daily maintenance of my blog/site. Justia maintains my site with speed and precision. My requests for new links, apps, or graphics are always actualized within 24 hours. This gives me more time to blog and do actual legal work.

3. They are honest. Recently, I became concerned that I did not own my blog url. Blogging is about building a presence on the internet. The url is the real estate. The blog is the building. I told Justia I wanted to own my url. Again, within 24 hours DallasCriminalDefenseLawyerBlog.com was transferred to my godaddy account. Could they have held my site ransom and forced me to renew my contract first? Sure. But they didn't. That shows true confidence in their product, and integrity. Consider this my uncompensated endorsement of Justia. Any lawyer looking to jump on the tail end of the blawg-wagon should consider their services.

You are a criminal defendant. There is a witness in your case. Your defense lawyer want to subpoena relevant instant messages, emails, or other communications sent by the witness through MySpace to prepare for trial.

Time for a quiz-

According to MySpace's legal compliance officer, Scott McFarland, which of the following can subpoena records from MySpace.com?

A) Criminal Defendants
B) The Court
C) Law Enforcement

Did you guess C? That's right. According to the letter I received today Myspace is no longer accepting subpoenas from criminal defendants, or the court. In fact, they will only honor requests for information from law enforcement. Their authority for this disparate treatment?

The Stored Communication Act, 18 USC 2702, two federal ninth circuit civil cases, and a California court of appeals case. In an Orwellian twist SCA was touted as a "privacy" measure. I guess the SCA trumps outdated legislation like the 6th amendment's right to confront witnesses. The founders would be proud.

I am not familiar with federal 9th Circuit civil cases nor California state decisions. Mr. McFarland may have been too busy editing his Facebook page to realize my subpoena is a) not in the Ninth Circuit, or California and b) a criminal case.

If myspace is right then the government can easily access records from a social network site, and use those records to convict you. However, defendants can not access those same records to defend a case. That sounds exactly like a "privacy" law the feds would pass.

While dismissing my request for records Scott advised me to seek "user consent" or subpoena these records from the user. Great idea Scott, I'll call a hostile witness and ask if they will just sign a waiver. Or hope this witness will honestly and completely responds to a subpoena. Why didn't I think of that? There is a reason we subpoena records from a third party. Such a naive proposition assumes that witnesses are computer literate, and honest.

I will post the letter from MySpace once my scanner starts working again (driver issues).

Recently, I was appointed to a misdemeanor pot case in Kaufman. Yet another reason you should support HB 902, so you can quit paying me to fight this nonsense. The appointment sheet listed the charge as possession of marijuana under 2 ounces; a class B misdemeanor and that bail was set at $100,000.

Convinced this was a typo, I called the jail to confirm. It's true. This defendant has no holds, no blue warrants, no probation revocation, no other charges and the magistrate set a $100,000 bail for a joint.

One of two things is at play here. Either the defendant royally pissed off the magistrate, or he has some prior criminal history. The former is a fairly rare circumstance. As to the latter. Does arrest for non violent meaningless victimless "crime" + criminal history= trapped in jail with a ridiculously high bond. Is that an equation for justice?

When bail is set there has no been no trial, no hearing, no day in court. Innocent people are arrested every day. Bail is supposed to insure that a defendant will return to court. More often, it's used to punish defendants before a case is filed. Another "beat the rap, not the ride" element of the criminal justice system.

So now I have to call the DA to work out an agreed bail reduction, or file a Writ and have a hearing to get bond lowered. Either way, it's your tax dollars wasted on another pot case.

Over 60,000 thousand Texans were arrested last year for marijuana possession. How should we punish our fellow Texans for the "crime" of pot possession?

Support House Bill 902-
Currently possession of any usable amount of marijuana is at least a class b misdemeanor (2 ounces or less), the same level of offense as DWI. 902 would make possession of less than one ounce of pot a class c misdemeanor, basically a traffic ticket. Even if you disagree with the legalization of marijuana, you should support 902.

Every prosecution is a choice (opportunity costs are real) of how to spend your tax dollars. 902 forces prosecutor and police to quit wasting time on college kids with weed and move on to more important cases.

The vast majority (I would estimate at least 90%) of all marijuana arrests and prosecutions are for simple class B possession. It's not hard to catch marijuana consumers. They can be overly honest about having a joint in their console. Many also fall victim to police consent searches.

Misdemeanor dockets are clogged with these cases. Police officers waste hours investigating, arresting, and booking pot defendants. DPS drug labs are flooded with half burnt roaches that require expensive time consuming testing.

Busting pot users isn't cheap, and provides no public safety benefit. The less time officers, ADAs, and DPS lab techs spend on marijuana enforcement, the more time they can spend on real crime.

It's time to end the inanity. Call, write, fax, or email your rep today and ask them to support 902. Don't know who your state rep is? Too lazy to write an original letter? NORML has done all the work for you, just click here.

Here is a shocking video from MPP. The field drug tests used by police around the country are wildly inaccurate leading to false arrests. I can't say I was shocked by these results.

An open records request I filed last year found over 500 cases over a two year period in Dallas county in which a suspected was arrested for drug possession and lab tests proved the substance was not drugs. Undoubtedly, these cheap field tests were used in some of these cases.

Here is an idea. How about a presumption that a substance is not drugs until proven in a quality controlled run by real scientists (not cops) using real equipment? Or maybe a presumption that a suspect is innocent? Nah, those measures would "send the wrong message" to kids. Onward Prohibition!

Another Grits inspired post.

CLEAT is the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas, the cop lobby. CLEAT 's website lists their legislative agenda, identifying bills they support and oppose. It's no surprise that CLEAT supports longer sentences, less freedom, and/or more tax dollars for policing; all of which fall under the umbrella of "law enforcement." One would surmise that CLEAT would support any bill that results in more law enforcement.

When does CLEAT oppose more law enforcement? When the suspects are cops. They like their blue wall of silence just the way it is. From CLEAT's site

SB 388 Carona Relating to the creation of the law enforcement integrity unit in the Department of Public Safety.
Remarks: OPPOSED: Creates a law enforcement integrity unit in DPS to investigate law enforcement corruption.
Bill History: 02-17-09 S Introduced and referred to committee on Senate Criminal Justice

Call your representative today and ask them to support SB 388.

I hate red light cameras. These automated taxing agents are the wretched offspring of nanny state fascism and government greed. Google has placed my site near the top for red light camera searches. Many of you come here looking for help. I share your disgust for red lights cameras. However, I do not take red light tickets. I want to help, but the numbers don't make sense (for you or me).

This is not an accident. The government designed the system to induce massive give up among defendants. If the government was going to steal a million dollars from one person, you can bet that person would fight the case. It's much easier for the government to steal $1 from a million drivers.

Most red light ticket are between $50-$150. To fight a red light ticket case you have to waste at least one whole day at court in front of a unaccountable administrative judge whose primary duty is to raise money for the city. This judge is going to find you guilty even if you hire OJ's defense team. After your hearing (no jury trials allowed) you may have some limited right of appeal, but that takes more time and another court appearance. Can you afford to miss a day of work to save $100? How about two days?

I can't try a case for $100. I certainly can't appeal a case for that much. There are attorneys who offer discount ticket defense, but that requires a volume practice. I am allergic to massive amounts of cases.

The simple equation for most drivers is

Cost of Paying Ticket < Cost (Time and Money) Fighting Ticket= Pay Ticket

Throw in the fact that most red light tickets are not reported to DPS and do not result in any "points" or a DL suspension and you have a system designed for large scale petty theft. The penalties involved are not high enough for defendants to hire a lawyer or spend the time and energy required to assert their rights. Taking time away from work and obligations to fight the government in a ticket case is not an option.

If red light cameras are allowed to exist in Texas then defendants should have the protections afforded other defendants in ticket cases (jury trial etc). If this is really about "public safety" and not taxation, than a little due process won't hurt.

My advise to the public; find a traffic ticket lawyer to fight your case and vote against the morons who allowed these cameras to invade our communities.