Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

There are only two traffic offenses in Texas for which arrest is not permitted, speeding and open container. I'm not sure what that says about our state. You can drink and speed but if you forget to buckle up or use your turn signal you can be sent to the clink? Such is our post Lago Vista world.

Here is the law-

Sec. 543.004. NOTICE TO APPEAR REQUIRED: CERTAIN OFFENSES.
(a) An officer shall issue a written notice to appear if:

(1) the offense charged is speeding or a violation of the open container law, Section 49.03, Penal Code; and

(2) the person makes a written promise to appear in court as provided by Section 543.005.

(b) If the person is a resident of or is operating a vehicle licensed in a state or country other than this state, Subsection (a) applies only as provided by Chapter 703.

(c) The offenses specified by Subsection (a) are the only offenses for which issuance of a written notice to appear is mandatory.

This law needs to be expanded to all class C misdemeanors. Class C misdemeanors (tickets) do not include jail time as a possible punishment. It's illogical to give a harsher punishment (incarceration) before trial than is available upon conviction.

This arbitrary power is used to bully, harass, and ultimately arrest Texas drivers. Remember Officer Powell's threats of arrest at the hospital? He had the law right. He could arrest any driver who ran a red light. That is exactly the kind of skullduggery you can expect when you give all cops the arbitrary power to arrest for the most trivial of offenses.

I'm proud to announce the First Annual Kaufman County Bench Bar Conference will be held October 9, 2009. We are going to have at least 5 hours of CLE with a heavy dose of ethics.

President Booker and I are working out the final details. I am currently soliciting CLE speakers. If you are interested in speaking, either solo or on a panel, shoot me an email. It doesn't have to be ethics either, just interesting.

I received a speeding citation last week on the notorious I-45 speed trap. Allegedly, I was going 73 in a 60. In my pre blogging days I would call the court and ask for deferred adjudication, pay the tax (fine) and move on.

However, the Google SEO gods demand constant sacrifices of content so I'm considering setting this case for trial and blogging the experience. I haven't completely committed to that endeavor just yet. The time obligation could be too great, and I may just give up and pay the fine. I also need to check and see if this is a court of record. That way if I have a trial and lose, I can appeal de novo and still get deffered or have another trial.

First, let's look at the laws regarding speeding in Texas. Most people think it is illegal to simply drive faster than the posted speed limit. While you can always be ticketed for driving over the speed limit, you may not be guilty of speeding. How's that? To chapter 545 of the Texas Transportation Code-

SUBCHAPTER H. SPEED RESTRICTIONS

Sec. 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.

So why do cops pull people over for speeding when there is no evidence of unreasonable or imprudent speed? That's where speed limits come in.

Sec. 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.

Driving over the speed limit creates a rebuttable presumption that you were being unreasonable or imprudent. That is, the State has proven you were violating 545.351 by showing you drove over the speed limit. From that point it's up to you to show you were being reasonable and prudent. This allows cops to ticket you for going any amount over the speed limit, even though you may be able to beat the case at trial.

Trials have large opportunity costs so most people pay the fine and/or call and ask for deferred.

Fresh angles are hard to come by in the blogging era. Just when I thought there weren't any new ways to comment on the legalization debate, this video came out.

Everything does sounds better auto tuned. Wait for the second segment in this video, after gay marriage, before Angry Gorilla.

Brilliant. H/T to The Agitator.

I have interacted with hundreds of cannabis consumers. First as a public defender, then a prosecutor, and finally as a private defense attorney. Much of the debate over cannabis prohibition is about the plant and the effects of smoking said plant. Let me share my experience with the more important aspect, the people we arrest and prosecute for marihuana possession.

Talking about such a large population of defendants without delving into broad stereotypes is impossible. There is probably a neo nazi terrorist serial killer somewhere who loved marijuana. I've never met such a person but probability guarantees at least a few such cases. Instead of individuals let us paint in broad strokes, starting with young adults.

I believe that children are the future, put them on probation and make them pee and pay
It never ceases to amaze me that the group most often arrested, prosecuted, probated, and incarcerated for marijuana possession is the same group that gets the most government anticannabis propaganda. I would guesstimate (and NORML confirms) that at least 1/2 of the possession cases involve defendants under 25.

It seems that the above the influence/pushing back/ondcp nonsense is being rejected by the target audience.

Why do we tolerate the arrest and prosecution of our young people for marijuana possession? Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W, and President Obama all used marijuana in their younger days. They were lucky enough to avoid law enforcement and went on to reach our nation's highest political offices.

It is absurd that we rely on the failure of law enforcement to protect our future leaders from the wrath of the criminal justice system. Statistically this approach makes sense. I would guess that 99.9% of all marijuana usage events occur without police intervention.

However, those who do get caught are sacrificed to the idol of prohibition and shackled with a permanent criminal record. Our young adults deserve better than this cruel reverse lottery.

Side note on probation/criminal records- Texas does not allow for the expunction of probation cases. Even deferred adjudication probation will leave a permanent arrest record. We are sabotaging the future of our young adults and branding them criminals.

Young adults make awful criminal defendants. They routinely confess that there is a joint in the car, or allow the police to search, or otherwise assist law enforcement in their own persecution. Fish in a barrel.

I will say that the internet age and the wealth of advice on handling police encounters is starting to make a difference, but not enough. Schools should teach police encounter self defense right after the Just Say No DARE class.

This group can also struggle with the demands of probation. Reporting, fines, fees, community service, drug education classes, drug testing, no drinking, don't go to bars, keep a job, don't leave the state, inter alia. Can you think of a worse time to be constantly monitored by the government than your early 20s? I'm surprised anyone under 25 finishes probation.

Older Users
I've represented more than a few older cannabis consumers. A lot of adults smoke pot, and not just burned out hippie types. According to our government the hard working mortgage paying career climbing pot smoker doesn't exist. Just like John Walter's "there are not pot smokers in jail" unicorn, this creature is also real. Don't believe me? Here is a list from the Agitator of successful pot smokers.

Many adults believe that smoking pot can be healthier than drinking or smoking cigarettes. They have made an informed decision to pursue cannabis for recreation instead of the government approved alternatives. I've had defendants tell me they never drink alcohol because of the health effects. Marijuana is their recreational choice.

The government establishment rejects this heresy and continues to waste millions of your tax dollars defending their orthodoxy. History has shown that change is possible, if not certain.. It took a while but eventually heliocentrism caught on everywhere, even in Texas.

Medical Marijuana Patients
While not a substantial population of defendants (our lege has failed to lead on MM legislation) I have seen those seeking relief from chronic and/or terminal illness. Texas' first successful cannabis necessity defense was last year in Amarillo. There is no certainty that defense would work in all MM cases (it's largely up the judge to allow MM evidence) and many MM patients never go to trial.

The stress of coming to court/sitting through trial, the cost of trial, and the risk of jail are so great that many MM cases plea bargain.

Rather than just debate the merits of legalizing a plant, we should also ask why we continue to arrest our friends, neighbors, adult children, and the infirm among us for the "crime" of cannabis possession. If cruel and unusual has any meaning, the arbitrary life altering arrest of thousands of Texans each year should meet that definition.

I knew in law school that I was going to be a criminal defense lawyer. My criminal law class was a painful study in how our constitutional rights were sacrificed to help save dope cases. Decades of weakening the 4th and 5th amendment (to the point of absurdity) all in the name of WOD. I wish I had my notes for that class, I remember writing "court oks search because cops find drugs, create new exception" etc.

One such tragedy was the line of "automobile" exceptions. Basically, driving a car meant you gave up your privacy rights so cops could search for drugs.

That is why today's case, Arizona v. Gant is significant. SCOTUS overturns (or "declines to interpret broadly") bad precedent and actually limits police searches.

It's a strange coalition, this majority. You have the originalist/strict constructionists Thomas and Scalia joining the liberal Souter and Stephens, with Ginsburg rounding out the 5.

Facts(from the opinion)

After Rodney Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car, police officers searched his car and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat.

Across our country minor traffic arrests have become fishing expeditions for dope. Gant was arrested for driving for driving without a license. The cops had no evidence of drug possession, but they dutifully searched the vehicle and found cocaine (yawn).

Holding-

Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle inci-dent to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

To see how far we have come, let's look at where we started.

Every case that creates a new police search power starts off with this quote-

Warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable,” “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v.United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357.

These exceptions have largely swallowed the rule. First (Chimel) SCOTUS allowed cops to search the area immediately around the defendant where he could reach or "lunge" for a weapon (officer safety etc). This was expanded (Belton) to include searching the rest of the car because bad guys could hide guns and dope in a car (preserving evidence). So arresting drivers for minor violations and then tearing cars apart became standard practice for law enforcement. Add the Lago Vista disaster (giving the police authority to arrest for trivial minor traffic offenses) and we had a situation where suspects could be pulled over for a minor traffic violation, refuse a consent search request, and the police could just arrest them for the traffic offense and search anyway. These pretext arrests were an end run around the 4th amendment.

SCOTUS righftully shut down this search because
a) searching for weapons couldn't be justified under "officer safety" if the defendant is handcuffed in the back of the patrol car
b) searching for dope wasn't justified for a traffic violation.

So remember kids, never consent to a search, never answer questions about illegal activities, and always ask for a lawyer.

Before we get too exited, there is still the "inventory" search for automobiles that may save similar searches in the future. That is, the cops tow your car and then "inventory" the contents.

Did you know the police are allowed to lie to you? It's true. The police can make up facts out of whole cloth and present them as fact.

What if the police wanted you to open the door to your house so they could peek inside? One would think that cops must obtain a warrant before entering a private residence. Instead, cops can lie about your car being robbed so you open the door for them.

This brings us to our case of the day. Stern vs. State No. 05-08-00553-CR

Facts-
Plano PD received an anonymous call about the odor of marijuana coming from an apartment. Having solved all real crime in the area, Plano PD sends over a few officers to investigate. The cops have no warrant, no probable cause or emergency required to gain entrance. Instead Plano PD is hoping those inside the apartment will open the door so they can see the drugs in "plain view." (If a cop sees drugs he can come in and arrest without a warrant.)

A Plano PD cop puts covers the peephole in the door with his finger and then bangs on the door yelling "Dude someone is breaking into your car?" Plano police invent a malum in se crime so they can arrest for a malum prohibitum offense. A monument to all that is wrong with cannabis prohibition.

What happens next? The defendant quickly opens the door to investigate the fake car break in.

From the opinion-
"The aggressive action startled both uniformed officers. Endsley stated he was not expecting somebody to come running up to him like he wanted to fight. When appellant saw the officers, he took a step back into the apartment while the door was still open. At this point the officers described the odor as “a stronger odor of marihuana” and as “freshly burning marihuana” coming from inside the apartment. While the door was open, Endsley saw another person, identified as Bach, sitting on the couch. When Bach saw the officers, “it looked like he was rummaging through something at the time by the-on the couch.” The officers could not see Bach's hands. Bodacki stepped onto the threshold of the door to prevent appellant from closing the door. Bodacki saw beer cans and a marihuana “bong” in plain sight inside the apartment. The officers asked the two persons not to move."

The "aggressive action" startled the police? These cops cover the peephole, bang on the door, and then tell Stern his car is being burglarized and the cops act surprised when the defendant comes running outside to investigate? Are these cops also startled when the sun comes up each morning?

Issue- Can the cops fake a car burglary, cover up your door peephole, prevent you from closing the door, then peak inside your house, all without a warrant?

Holding- Of course, this is a drug search. How do you think we bust pot smokers?

The record reflects and the trial court found the officers entered believing officer safety and prevention of the destruction of evidence were paramount. Under these circumstances, we hold the officers had sufficient probable cause to enter the apartment. We next examine the issue of whether exigent circumstances existed to support a warrantless search of the apartment. When the officers first arrived at the apartment complex, they had information that there was a marihuana problem at a specific apartment. They corroborated this information when they arrived at the apartment and smelled marihuana emanating from the apartment doorway and then detected a stronger smell after appellant opened the front door. The combination of the odor of freshly burning marihuana, the fact it became quiet a few moments after the officers knocked, the delay in responding to the knock on the front door, Bach's furtive movements on the couch with his hands out of the officers' sight, and the need to determine that appellant and any other occupant in the apartment did not have a weapon and were not destroying evidence provided exigent circumstances for the officers to enter the apartment to conduct a protective sweep to secure the scene for officer safety and to prevent the destruction of evidence.

"Officer safety" has become a catch all term for drug searches. Since anyone could potentially be armed the cops are allowed to violate your rights if they just state that they thought you could be armed. No one wants cops to get hurt so our appellate courts allow all sorts of nonsense in the name of officer safety. We allow law enforcement to create these frightening home invasion situations and then when the residents act scared, nervous, or move in any manner the cops have further justification to search.

You know what would really enhance "officer safety"? If we quit sending armed police squads into private residences to search for pot. There should be a "citizen's safety" law to exclude these searches. Oh wait, that was the 4th amendment. Never mind.

Finally, none of this would have been necessary if Stern and his buddy had followed the "smoke pot and not get caught" rules from NORML. Never let your apartment smell like burnt marijuana, it's a bad idea. Your neighbor might be a narc and the Plano PD might stage a car jacking to gain entrance.

Today was the Kaufman county bar meeting. Our speaker was Kaufman district attorney Rick Harrison. Mr. Harrison discussed the new child advocacy center. The CAC provides a non-law enforcement environment for children to be interviewed.

We also discussed raising bar dues to pay for lunch/CLE. Kaufman bar dues are $50 per year. Pretty low for a county bar association. We may vote on this next time.

Kaufman Tea Party
The Kaufman courthouse was full of tea party goers (think they support a new courthouse?). I would estimate at least one hundred people were in attendance. I'm sure each tea party took on the flavor of local politics. Kaufman's tea party began with a prayer and the pledge of allegiance. I didn't get to see hear the speakers as the bar meeting was at the same time.

As a libertarian I'm for anything that reduces the size and scope of government. Spending hundreds of billions on a bailout guarantees the government must secure (steal) that money from future generations. Who am I to shackle today's young people with crippling debt? It's arrogance, cruelty, and selfishness of the highest order.

Watching the fervor of anti tax conservatives always makes me wonder why fiscal conservatives embrace big government social conservatism (prohibition for example)? Why is it evil for the government to tax and spend billions, but not evil to arrest pot smokers? I don't get it. It's two sides of the same coin to me.

Here is a photo I took on my I phone.

Good people from all walks of life use marijuana. Good people from all walks of life also get arrested for possession of marijuana. Until we correct the tragic failure of cannabis prohibition pot smokers must exercise self defense and common sense to avoid the wrath of law enforcement.

To that end here is a cartoon from NORML. It's more common sense than legal advise. Let me add one thing to this cartoon; never tell the police there is pot in your car. If cops ask about drugs, ask for a lawyer. Pot smokers are way too honest and trusting (unlike those who arrest pot smokers).

No new Kaufman county courthouse. County commissioners rejected, by a 3-2 vote, negotiating a planning fee with an architectural firm. Needless to say the response from those who work at the courthouse was not enthusiastic.

From Kaufman Herald.com-

With a 3-to-2 vote Monday, commissioners opposed a motion authorizing County Judge Wayne Gent to negotiate with the firm of Wiginton Hooker Jeffry Architects to determine a fee for planning of the proposed project. Gent and Commissioner Ray Clark voted in favor of the motion while commissioners Jerry Rowden, J.C. Jackson and Jim Deller opposed it.

“I don’t have any doubt that we need a new courts building. I’m here closer than any of the other commissioners and I see every day and everytime they have jury trials over there. I know how bad it is,” Rowden said. “What bothers me is the timing of it all. Our tax rate is already way high, and I campaigned on a platform of not raising taxes. I’m just not ready to add a nickel to our tax rate especially in light of the current economy.”

There is considerable taxpayer dissent on the issue. Just read the comments on the KH website. I don't live in Kaufman County. I do pay some business taxes and sales tax. I can understand why voters oppose this issue. They see it as all cost and no benefit. Kaufman is a fiscal/socially conservative county. They hate paying taxes, and they love locking up people for dope. Therein lies the problem.

I'm libertarian and I hate taxes. I would advocate ending the war on drugs to end the necessity of both a new courthouse and Kaufman's huge jail. It's the endless supply of drug defendants that fill up the jail, clog the felony dockets, and require mountains of tax dollars to warehouse and prosecute. That may not be possible the short run. However, it's that choice (Prohibition II) that makes bigger government/more spending a certainty.

Finally, I can't believe a tax increase is the only way to finance a courthouse. This is a recession, and we are all cutting back and prioritizing spending. Is there money is current budget that could be better spent on a new courthouse? That would create a turf war. But if the voters don't want a tax increase why not consider it?

Probation can be tough for a lot of reasons. From failing drug tests, to failing to report, to missing a meeting there are dozens of ways to get your probation revoked. It has come to my attention that the revocation process is not well understood by probationers. Let me hit a few high points.

No Juries
A probation revocation hearing is always in front of a judge. You have no right to a jury trial.

Range of Punishment- How much time are you looking at?
Depends. If you plead for deferred adjudication then you are open for the entire range of punishment for your original offense. For example, if you are on deferred for a first degree felony you could anything from 5-99 years, or the judge could continue you on probation.

If you are on "straight" probation (non-deferred) then your maximum sentence has already been decided. Let's take a third degree felony with a 2 for 5 plea. You are sentenced to two years in jail, probated for five years. 5 years is your maximum sentence. The judge could give you less time, or you could work out a plea bargain for less time.

Beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope.
The State need not prove you violated probation beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it's a "preponderance of the evidence." What is POTE? 51%. That is, it's more likely than not, or the evidence is 51% in favor.

Failure to pay
The State wants its money and will revoke you for not paying fines, fees, and costs. Inability to pay is an affirmative defense that the defendant has to prove by a POTE.

New Charges
You are on probation and you get arrested again. First, you must report an arrest within 48 hours of release from jail. However, getting arrested is not enough to revoke your probation. The State must prove by a POTE that you committed a new offense.

If you get arrested call your attorney, and your PO, immediately.

Bond
Deferred probationers are entitled to bail. Word of this requirement has not spread to Kaufman county where felony probationers are almost always denied bail. The reason? Whoever typed the "recommended bond schedule" listed felony probation revocation cases as "no bond". Being entitled to bond isn't as great as it sounds. I've seen these bonds set at $200,000. Bond is not supposed to used for oppression, but we do it anyway.

If you are not on deferred no bond could be set, but you can still have a hearing to lower it. However, you are not entitled to bond.

Can I be reinstated?
Depends on the charge, and what county you are in. I have found that paying your fines and fees is a great place to start. The government loves money and they may sell you back some freedom for cash.

A better question may be "Should I be reinstated?" Some people suck at probation. You can't drink, use any drugs, or commit any new crimes. Also, you have to work, report, do community service, and take classes. It may be too much to handle for some. Many probationers choose to just sit out a sentence rather than complete another year or two of supervision.

I can't say I blame them. Our community supervision system almost guarantees failure. We put addicts on probation, and then act surprised when they test positive. We put the indigent on probation and then act when surprised the can't pay.

I'm of counsel with Guest and Associates, a civil litigation firm in Irving. (Yes we are related, it's my uncle's law firm). Recently, I've assisted on some consumer debt (credit card, car loans etc) defense cases. G&A does most of the heavy lifting, I help with some filings/appearances and handle consultations. Unlike most areas of civil law I've found consumer debt defense highly enjoyable. Theses cases and clients really resonate with me.

What's to like about credit card/consumer debt cases?
First, there is a similar David v. Goliath narrative in both consumer debt and criminal defense. Both cases involve the little guy fighting a giant corrupt entity hell bent on destroying the individual.

Second, I have no inner free market conflict with consumer debtors not paying their balances. The credit card industry lost their free market/sanctity of contract credibility when they took bailout money and bribed our government for special favors,. I'm anti bailout and I abhor blatant hypocrisy.

Third, this is a recession, some people just can't pay their bills. These defendants are good people in a bad position. Yes, some spent too much, but so did CITI, Fannie, AIG, etc. Unlike CITI, Fannie and AIG these consumers lack the money to hire lobbyists and/or bribe Congress. In our world turned upside down, consumer's tax dollars are bailing out failed finance companies who, in turn, are trying to collect debt from the consumer. Taxpayers are subsidizing their own persecution and prosecution.

Finally, much credit debt is sold or "assigned" to consumer debt collections firms (Big Debt). These agencies employ scum of the earth debt collectors. Big Debt has a standard MO to maximize revenue- harass, embarrass, threaten, lie, and sometimes file a lawsuit. It's a joy to fight Big Debt.

A typical Texas debt case
From what I have gathered here is how the system works. Joe gets a CITI card with a $10,000 limit. Joe loses his job, gets sick, and gets a divorce.

Joe has maxed out the CITI card and Joe can't pay. First, CITI will send some letters and try to work out a settlement or call Joe repeatedly demanding payment. Joe has quit answering the phone and ignores the letters.

Eventually CITI gives up and sells, or "assigns" this debt to a Big Debt firm. Let's call this firm Scumbag Debt Collections. SDC will buy Joe's debt for pennies on the dollar. For example, SDC may pay $1,000 for Joe's $10,000 debt. If SDC can scare, harass, threaten and/or persuade Joe to pay $2,000, that's a profit.

For credit card and Big Debt companies a lawsuit is usually the last option. The reason... lawsuits cost money. There are filing and service fees and you have to hire a debt collection law firm.

The scarlet letter for a Big Law debt collection firm is bar codes on the bottom of each page. Who has so many cases they require bar codes? Really? The vast majority of debt defendants will not file an answer and a default judgment will be entered against the debtor. That's what Big Debt counts on. The judgment ensures that Big Debt can continue to harass of the debtor for many years to come.

That's where I/we come in. The reality of a volume/bar code law practice is that no individual case can get much attention. The discovery process can expose a weak debt case and/or make an individual case too much of a hassle to continue.

The burden is on the plaintiff to show a valid contract, and a valid assignment. Big Debt firms don't have a few empty warehouses to keep all this paperwork.

If a case can't be dismissed a settlement is usually in order. I haven't seen a case go to trial yet. I'm looking forward to assisting on more consumer debt cases in the future. Not enough to abandon criminal practice, but it's fun for civil law.

I was interviewed last week by RidinDirtyRadio. Thanks to Ken and Heidi for having me on.

Click here for the interview.

A follow up-
I stated that drinking and driving is not illegal. I meant that drinking then driving is not illegal (sans intoxication) in Texas. We still have an open container law.

Still, I recommend never drinking then driving. Intoxication is an opinion. You can never know when a cop will decide you are intoxicated and take you to jail. I've seen the innocent convicted of DWI. Don't risk it.

Kaufman is the county east of Dallas. Geographically we are neighbors, but we each have unique criminal justice systems. As a lawyer who operates in both worlds let me offer a comparison.

First, the part of criminal defense that actually matters is the same in both counties. The law, working the facts, investigating the investigation, etc doesn't change no matter where you are. I believe there can be an advantage to hiring a local attorney. However, defendants are better served hiring a great defense lawyer, not a local one.

It's the little things that are different. There is no quicker way to incur the wrath of a clerk or court coordinator than to violate local custom. Forget to hole punch your pages? Forget to have the ADA sign a pass slip? Staple something that shouldn't be stapled? No soup for you, carpetbagger!

Passing Cases
In Dallas, defendants are not expected to appear at announcement settings on misdemeanor cases. (An announcement is where both lawyers show up and discuss your case, but nothing contested is set.) I can show up and pass the case sans client.

In Kaufman, misdemeanor defendants have to show up at nearly every appearance. I say nearly because CC2 allows the lawyer to make the first appearance sans client. This policy is a major disadvantage to out of state clients. It puts pressure on the defendants to plea just so they don't have to make a return trip.

Technology
Kaufman county utilizes the Odyssey case management system. Odyssey is effective, with an intuitive user interface. Most people who can use a PC pick up the Odyssey system without a problem.

I have yet to learn the name of the Dallas computer program. I refer to it as that POS DOS program, because that is what it is. The Dharma Initivative had better software.

First, you are presented with a wonderful blank screen, with a flashing green cursor. No windows, nothing to click on. Just horrible black and green emptiness.

Want to search for a case? Type JI55. Obviously.

What's JI55? It's an ancient hieroglyphic search term. The original meaning was lost years ago. To make matters worse pressing the return key is always wrong. That's right, return does nothing. You have to hit control. Why? Who knows.

Dallas does have an advantage in that each courtroom has a computer, so this cryptic program is readily available. Kaufman only has one public access terminal for the whole courthouse.

Prosecutor Autonomy
In Kaufman there is much more autonomy for each individual prosecutor. Kaufman does have a chief misdemeanor prosecutor, but he does not have to approve every obstruction plea or dismissal. The ADA's in Kaufman are responsible for their own cases, and the resolution of those cases. This is not to say that rookie prosecutors don't ask for help or direction. They do, but they aren't required to do so.

In Dallas some decisions require chief approval. Obstructions are a good example. Want an obstruction without setting a case for trial? First, pitch the case to the ADA, then that ADA takes the case to her chief for approval. Then the chief denies the obstruction and you set the case for trial. The hierarchy is much more defined in Dallas.

Discovery
Enough complaining about Dallas. They actually have a slightly faster discovery process. Just go the DA workroom and ask for a copy of discovery. If there is nothing to be redacted you can get a copy right away. Great system.

Kaufman has an open file policy, but you have to request discovery then pick it up later, almost always within 2 day. Sometimes, the Kaufman DA will even mail your discovery to you. Overall, both counties have great open file policies.

Reset Dates-
Kaufman misdemeanor courts only have announcement dockets once a week (Monday for CC2, Thursdays for CC). To pass a case you have to get your client to court, then approach the court coordinator and ask for a reset date.

For misdemeanors cases in Dallas reset dates are much more flexible. Since your client doesn't actually appear and/or do anything you can reset a case for any day of the week. Plus, your lawyer can just choose a date. In Kaufman, not so much.

Courthouse Efficiency/Design-
In Dallas every courtroom has a clerk's office, a DA workroom, a defense lawyer meeting room, and a probation office. In Kaufman there are no DA workrooms, no defense lawyer meeting rooms. The clerks and probation have offices separate from the courts. The Dallas courthouse was built for efficiency, the Kaufman courthouse was built.

Not all cops are bad. But every department has a few Officer Powells on the force. Besides harassing motorists on their way to the ER Officer Powell also attempted at least one DWI arrest. Allegedly, he (shock!) told conflicting stories at the scene, on the stand, and in his police reports.

From DMN

In one Denton County case, dismissed by prosecutors last year, Powell can be heard on his dashboard video camera acting hostile toward a man he pulled over for speeding.

"What's your hurry?" Powell asked.

"No hurry, sir."

"All right, try again," Powell said. "What's your hurry? ... Don't lie."

Powell can then be heard telling another officer that he didn't smell any alcohol on the man but was going to check him for intoxication anyway.

The man refused to blow into a Breathalyzer but did perform field sobriety tests of speech and balance. Powell arrested the man on a DWI charge.

Later, at a state hearing to determine whether the man would lose his driver's license for refusing the breath test, Powell contradicted what he said on video. "And you asked him to step out of the car for what reason?" the man's attorney, Kimberly Griffin Tucker, asked Powell, according to a transcript.

"Because I smelled alcohol on his breath," Powell replied.

When Tucker then played the video, Powell gave another explanation.

"Well, I didn't say exactly when I smelled the alcohol," he said. "Sometimes when I get people out, I can smell it more than in their vehicle because a lot of times people won't exactly look at me."

The judge, unconvinced that Powell had probable cause, declined to suspend the man's license in the December 2007 arrest. And Denton County prosecutors dismissed the DWI charge. They didn't feel they had enough evidence to make a case, prosecutor Jamie Beck said.

Of the defendant's actions on tape, Beck said: "He's being very polite, very cooperative, and his mental faculties appear to be intact."

"The officer is kind of a jerk," the prosecutor said, "so that's going to count against us when we're trying it in court."

Remember that "protection" in the DWI roadblock law that requires reasonable suspicion to require SFSTs? If Officer Powell hadn't been stupid (or honest) enough to admit on camera he couldn't smell alcohol a judge may very well have ruled he had RS to conduct SFST.

Here is the video of the stop. This is your checkpoint future Texas. We will remember these pre roadblock (PR) days as a simpler time when Texans were able to avoid the wrath of rogue cops by obeying every traffic law. Glory days, they'll pass you by, glory daaaaaaa aaa aaays.