Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

I got my new shiny Dell Vostro 220 in yesterday. For some reason I can't resist putting a new machine together right away. Originally, I had decided to wait until after work to start this project, but I got back early from lunch and I could not resist. I had to get this up and running, my inner techno geek wanted a new toy to play with. So I rip open the box and quickly assemble my Vostro. No problems, it boots, I'm happy.

The plan was to use PC mover to transfer the data from old computer to the new machine. Simple right? I installed PC mover on the old PC. Then I put the PC mover CD into the new computer and F A I L.

My new computer doesn't know it has a CD/DVD drive (optical drive). That is, the CD drive opens and closes, you can put a disc in and eject, but the PC doesn't know it's there.

Given what I know about Windows I try the usual fixes, check control panel, my computer, and restart the damn thing. No dice.

So, I get online and have a chat with tech support. After 3 hours with four different tech support helpers (I had to reboot a half dozen times which lost my connection) I am instructed to dismantle my PC and physically remove the optical drive. Really?

You send me a new computer, it breaks, and I am supposed to perform PC surgery in my office, at 7PM. Who does that to their customers? I wouldn't make my clients do their own voir dire. I balk at this idea and take this to the next level. I call customer support.

Customer support is more response, they review the pages of chat log and come to a startling conclusion- the CD player is broken and should be replaced. No shit Sherlock. Allegedly, a Dell technician is on his way to my office today.

I wasted my entire afternoon on this disaster. My office looks like Johnny Five was dismembered.

Did I mention this is my last office PC?

Blood evidence is all the rage in DWI cases. Like most DWI defense lawyers I need an expert to help analyze blood results. Let's talk to one.

Today's expert is Dwain Fuller, Technical Director of the Toxicology Laboratories at a leading North Texas medical center. Mr. Fuller holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from the University of Oklahoma and has worked in toxicology since 1984.

His impressive bio would devour this entire post, so click here for his complete resume.

Are blood tests more accurate than breath tests?

This could be discussed in all of its nuances for several pages and still not completely exhaust the subject, but to be somewhat brief: It depends on what you mean by your question. If you mean “Which test most accurately measures the concentration of alcohol in a person’s blood?”, then the answer is, “a blood test is more accurate than breath.” A breath test can only estimate the alcohol concentration in the blood. To estimate the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) from a breath test it must be assumed that a 2100:1 concentration ratio exists between blood and breath. In fact this is an average ratio; some people have a higher ratio, some lower. In fact, the actual average ratio is probably a bit higher at around 2300:1. Therefore, calculating a BAC from a breath alcohol at the 2100:1 ratio would likely underestimate the BAC to some degree.

However, Texas law recognizes the problem of the 2100:1 ratio being an average and defines the per se concentration separately for each allowed specimen. In other words, Texas law defines the per se concentration in whole blood as 0.08 g/dL, in breath as 0.08 g/210 liters (2100 dL) of breath, and for similar reasons, urine per se concentration is defined as 0.08 g/67 mL of urine. Since there is no need to convert to a BAC the problem of what ratio to use is eliminated.

Probably what you are really asking is “Which test is analytically more accurate (and/or precise) in measuring alcohol in its respective matrix? The short answer is: “Both techniques are based on sound analytical principles and are capable of highly accurate results.” However, there are several other factors that must be considered.

Breath tests are typically performed by specially trained law enforcement officers. While I have the greatest respect for most law enforcement officers, analytical chemistry is usually not the course of study one pursues to work in this field. Likewise, I would put more confidence in a law enforcement officer protecting me and my loved ones from bad guys than I would in most of my forensic toxicologist colleagues. It’s all about doing best those things we understand the best.

Since a breath test is conducted directly on a living human subject, there exist certain conditions that must be controlled to ensure accuracy and precision. For example the subject must be observed for a period of at least 15 minutes to ensure that there is no remaining mouth alcohol or that the subject hasn’t place anything into his or her mouth or belched. During the test the subject must blow for a sufficient period of time to ensure that the air sample is of deep lung or alveolar air. The concentration of alcohol in the air first expired from the lungs is typically lower in alcohol concentration than that of deep lung air. In other words, the concentration of alcohol in the expired air being blown into the breath testing device changes from the beginning of the blowing until the end.

Furthermore, the breath instrument works on the assumption that the breath temperature is 34C which may or may not be the case, depending on the subject. This is important because this is the temperature at which the device is calibrated and the temperature at which the reference sample, used to validate the results, is obtained from the breath simulator. This is based on a physical chemistry principle known as Henry’s law. According to Henry's Law, at a given temperature, the amount of alcohol in the air above a solution of alcohol (reference sample) is proportional to the amount of alcohol in the solution (reference solution). If the solution temperature is low, the reference results will be low. If the solution temperature is high, the reference results will be high. Likewise, if the subjects body temperature is increased, his or her breath alcohol concentration will be increased and vice versa.

There exist many other factors that must be controlled or otherwise dealt with, such as electromagnetic interference and possible interfering substances such as acetone or other volatile compounds that may have been produced, ingested or absorbed by the subject, or are perhaps in the ambient air of the room housing the testing device.

To be fair, most testing devices enlist “fail safe” mechanisms in an attempt prevent errant readings from these sources, but there exists some dispute at the effectiveness of these mechanisms. Perhaps you might want to envision a juggler; the more balls one must keep in the air, the more chances are that you will drop one.

More from Dwain after the jump... including what problems can occur with blood testing, discovery advise, and even a pot question

Continue reading " Ask the Expert- Toxicologist Dwain Fuller " »

DMN has the story of a Wylie video store owner who has his customers arrested for late videos. This piece is sure to generate some outrage in the comments section. "You shouldn't arrest someone for late DVDs!!!" etc. I'm not sure how arresting for late videos is any less repugnant that arresting college kids with joints, but I digress.

From DMN-

Bell went to a Collin County justice of the peace to file paperwork on dozens of his customers who were charged with theft of services.

The court issued arrest warrants for those who failed to pay up.

Some Video Hits customers paid fines of up to $870; others were arrested by the constable

The video rental vigilante is a high profile example of the merchant/law enforcement collections alliance. It's also a good introduction into the Hot Check Hustle taking place across our state.

Texas law allows merchants to have customers arrested for bad checks. The police are human repo men, county jail is our debtors prison, and the DA is the BigDebt collection firm.

How do insufficient funds become "theft" cases? Two ways.

The first is when you write a check on a closed account. No complaints from me there, that's fraud. Intent seems fairly obvious.

The second is where your checks bounces for insufficient funds. Intent seems to be lacking in this situation because it often is. How many of us have bounced a check? Were you intending to steal anything?

In our second scenario the merchant can mail you a letter with some magic language that demands payment. If you don't pay within 10 days the law creates a presumption that you intended to defraud the merchant.

Presumptions of intent are fraught with peril. They allow the DA to file a case and issue a warrant without doing any investigation. The result is that merchants drop off stacks of checks with affidavits and the DA files a case or sends a demand letter. It's law enforcement sans investigation. How do you think that turns out?

Like red light debt cameras this automated law enforcement system lacks the ability to distinguish the innocent (or indigent) from the criminal.

What's wrong with arresting for bad checks?
First, it's overkill. Checks over $20 are a class B misdemeanor. If you bounce a few $25 checks one month and can't pay them you are looking a arrest, bail, and prosecution with a possible 180 days in jail and $2,000 fine on each case.

Second we are in a recession, checks bounce, merchants (like me) who accept checks should accept the risk of non payment and adjust their policies. I've not been paid for work done (eg DWI dismissed and the check bounced). It hurt, it sucked, and I adjusted my policies accordingly. If I'm going to take non cash items, I accept that there is a degree of risk involved.

There are options available for those who still choose to accept checks. I investigated one of those instant check verification systems a while ago. If we are going to allow arrest for bad checks, we should require the merchant to exercise some due diligence in accepting checks.

Finally, there is no protection for identify theft victims. I've seen scores of cases where a check book was stolen, or someones ID was used fraudulently. The result is that victim of ID theft gets arrested (sometimes out of State) and prosecuted for a checks they didn't write. That's what happens when you presume intent and conduct no investigation.

Many DA's office will send a letter demanding payment prior to filing the case. This is all that stands between ID theft victims and wrongful arrest and prosecution. So check your mail.

Third, it's not equitable. If non payment is going to be a crime that why not make DTPA (consumer protection) violations a crime also? If you paid your hard earned money for a car, and it turns out to be a lemon your remedy is a lawsuit. Why not create a presumption of fraud and have the dealer arrested instead?

I think civil courts are best equipped to handle non payment. We should save the theft designation for actual intent to steal, not invent intent where it doesn't exist.

Did I mention DA across the State collect millions in hot check fees each year? The law creates a special hot check slush fund for DA's to spend on salaries for other "expenses" (Xmas parties).

DAs (who duty is supposed to be justice, not collections) have assumed the role of big debt law collections firms. Instead of merely harassing you over the phone, they throw you in jail until you pay. It's time to end the slush fund debtors prison injustice and only prosecute theft cases where there is actual evidence of theft.

How can cops interrogate you if they can't talk to you because you have a lawyer? Even a false confession requires significant psychological pressure. The kind LEO can only exert without your defense lawyer present. Welcome to the new 6th amendment, it's no longer a right, it's a privilege (you have to assert!).

Time for the SCOTUS case of the day- Montejo vs. Lousiana.

What happened?
Jesse Montejo was arrested on September 6, 2002, for a robbery/murder. On September 10, Montejo was brought before a judge for a “72-hour hearing” and appointed counsel.

That same day, before Montejo's lawyer could make it to the jail, the police picked up Montejo, Mirandized him again, and elicited more incriminating evidence.

What's wrong with that?
Well, Montejo had a lawyer, and the police continued to interrogate him. The record isn't clear that Montejo requested a lawyer, or even knew who his lawyer was. That shouldn't matter. The right to counsel includes (or should) the right to actually meet with and/or speak to your attorney.

I've been appointed on cases and not known about the appointment for a few days. It's not always possible for me to meet each client the instant I am appointed. I may have to change this approach if Montejo inspired officers start (or continue) to interrogate my clients post appointment.

Montejo had been in jail and interrogated for 3 days, at the very least he needed a break to speak with his attorney. SCOTUS acknowledges that Montejo would have been protected had he asked for a lawyer. Your new 6th amendment= the appointment of an attorney provides no protection. The public must be aware that the burden is on them to invoke their right to counsel.

Even without Jackson, few badger-ing-induced waivers, if any, would be admitted at trial because theCourt has taken substantial other, overlapping measures to exclude them. Under Miranda, any suspect subject to custodial interrogation must be advised of his right to have a lawyer present. 384 U. S., at 474. Under Edwards, once such a defendant “has invoked his [Miranda] right,” interrogation must stop. 451 U. S., at 484. And under Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U. S. 146, no subsequent interro-gation may take place until counsel is present. Id., at 153. These three layers of prophylaxis are sufficient. On the other side of the equation, the principal cost of applying Jackson’s rule is that crimes can go unsolved and criminals unpunished when uncoerced confes-sions are excluded and when officers are deterred from even trying to obtain confessions. The Court concludes that the Jackson rule does not “pay its way,” United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907–908, n. 6, and thus the case should be overruled. Pp. 13–18.

The Montejo lesson for police encounters; ask for an attorney, even if you already have one.

I hate Windows. Every day I boot up that Windows XP logo reminds me how uncool and backwards my computer is. I want to be hip, creative, apple cool.

I feel like a serf on the Windows farm. I can't leave, I want to leave. But I'm stubborn when it comes to software. Two programs that are essential to my practice are not Apple friendly.

The first is my law firm software, elaw. I love elaw, I can't live without elaw. Elaw doesn't support Apple.

The second is pro docs. The longer I practice the less I use pro docs. For criminal law I mostly take an old motion, apply new facts and case law, and turn that into a new motion. I do have some civil cases and I find pro docs invaluable for those cases. I could ditch PD if Elaw made the switch. PD is convenient, not essential.

Recently, my three year old work PC has proven to be unresponsive. First, the DVD player quit working with any consistency. It moans and groans before finally playing the DWI video, or giving up. I could replace just the DVD player, but its time to take this whole PC out to pasture.

Second, I need more RAM. One gig of RAM means having to wait for things to load. I need a faster computer to get more done now. Also, since my new computer comes with the Vista disaster, I'll need 4 gigs of RAM just to play minesweeper.

Finally, this old computer is not adequate for storing or editing large amounts of video.

I didn't fully realize how much fail was in Windows until I got an iphone two years. My iphone has two buttons, almost always works, syncs, updates, and is virus/spyware/adware free.

It's everything my Windows computer isn't- intuitive, efficient, and fun. The trojan horse iphone has me wanting more Apple technology in my life.

I look forward to the day I purchase my last PC. Elaw has assured me they are working on a mac product. I could learn to live without ProDocs. I'm probably going to buy a netbook in the near future, and hopefully never send Microsoft another dollar.

Polka Fest 09-
This weekend is the annual Ennis Polka Festival. I'll be at the KJT (Katolická Jednota Texaská) Saturday night (around 8ish) to see the Czechaholics and Brave Combo.

Come to Ennis and experience this one of a kind polkapalooza. Most of the polka dances can be accomplished with a slight variation of the country two step (quick, quick, slow, or something like that). No problem for most people to pick up. However, I largely rely on my wife to count the steps out loud while we are dancing. If NHTSA ever adopts the two step as a field sobriety test I"ll quit driving because I would fail every time.

DMN on DWI-
I'm not surprised that the various DMN "blogs" take a less objective journalism tone and adopt the informal blogger style. However, this DWI blood draw post seems to have been written by MADD. I've never seen such enthusiasm for blood tyranny before outside of MADD.

If you get pulled over for drunken driving this Memorial Day weekend, don't bother refusing to blow. Dallas police are gonna get a warrant for bulletproof evidence - your alcohol-laced blood. And they'll take it whether you like it or not.

First, "don't bother refusing to blow" is some pretty blunt legal advise. The decision to blow or not is complicated with legal and factual considerations. The kind of decision we used to allow defendants to make with counsel.

For example, in deciding to blow or not you should be aware that we still don't know what kind of software the Texas breath machine uses. Should we believe that our breath machine software is any less flawed than the Alcotest? Certain medical conditions can affect a breath score, as well as breath temperature. Should you blow or not? Depends, ask a lawyer, not a journalist.

Second, blood is only "bulletproof evidence" if you don't know anything about blood testing, or evidence. Blood tests are complicated and require precision in every step or the results will be corrupted. Precise scientific evidence and law enforcement don't always mix.

Also, just because a blood result is over .08 does not mean that the driver was over .08 when driving. We allow the make believe science of retrograde extrapolation to make that leap, but it's far from "bulletproof."

Finally, "take your blood whether you like it or not"? That sentence says a lot about the current state of DWI hysteria. We've gone GITMO on DWI suspects. You have no rights, and DPD has their needles ready.

Pot leads to crack and death says FBI director
Forcing our bureaucrats to advocate such ridiculous positions in public makes us all look bad. I'm sure this Robert Mueller guy is embarrassed and having to promote this idiocy. We should legalize pot if for no other reason than to end the public humiliation of our bureaucrats.

This must be some kind of secret federal government hazing ritual. Mr. Mueller is the pledge and before he gets a cabinet level position he has to get "punk'd" in front of Congress to show his loyalty. That makes more sense than his idea that we should treat pot like crack.

Thank you sir, may I have another!

It's that time of year when TXDOT rolls out the Click It or Ticket revenue/harrassment campaign. The ads are typical police state propaganda- The cops are watching you, they are coming to get you, change your behavior or the state will send the police to steal your money!

Texas drivers can thank the federal government when they get pulled over. Local law enforcement gets federal funds to pump out tickets, which fills up the coffers of local governments. It's a win/win for government at all levels. The only losers are the hard working Texas drivers caught up in this ticket pork scam.

How does TXDOT sell this steaming pile to the public? By telling you how much they care. (At least it's not "for the children").

Click It or Ticket isn't just about writing tickets—it's about keeping Texans safe on the road. Federal and state officials set aside funds we put to work to alert the public about buckling up. One way to do that is to send more officers out to help remind motorists to buckle up. Websites like these, TV and radio ads plus news articles and shows also help remind motorists to make buckling up a habit, too.

Why should you? Buckling up is your best bet to prevent serious injury or death in a crash. Crashes where the victims aren't wearing safety belts can be pretty bad. People who aren't buckled up are often thrown out of their car or truck, and sometimes the vehicle rolls over them.

Crashes can be..."pretty bad"? That's the justification?

You know what else is "pretty bad"? When some crazed LEO arrests a Texas driver for not wearing their seat belt. We set the stage for such malfeasance when we pump LEO full of "this will save lives" propaganda and then hand out federal dollars maximize the numbers of tickets written.

The recession makes this year's campaign even crueler. Inevitably, some hard working Texans won't be able afford their seat belt fine. Many will end up with a warrant. In a Mommy Dearest move our loving bureaucratic parents at TXDOT are going to arrest the very drivers they care so much about.

I had a DWI bench trial on Thursday (no verdict yet) that sapped my weekend blogging energy. I don't usually blog about my pending cases, so lets talk about bench trials in general.

What is a bench trial?
Bench trial, judge trial, TBC (trial before the court), or TBJ (trial before judge) are all the same thing- a trial without a jury. In a bench trial the judge not only decides the law, but also the facts.

The defendant does not enjoy a unilateral right to request a bench trial. The State must consent to a jury waiver. The State's "right" to a jury trial is one reason that poison the jury pool ads (Drink. Drive. Go To Jail) undermine the criminal justice system. The State spends millions to persuade jurors to convict for DWI, and the State can demand a jury trial. Nice.

Should I have a bench trial?
First, you have to weigh the judge/jury pool. If a judge has a reputation as being pro prosecution (or is an ex prosecutor, or ex-DA) then you may want a jury.

Second, it depends on what your local jurors are like. Locally, Collin county is regarded as the most pro conviction jury pool in the Metroplex. Ergo, bench trials are in high demand in McKinney.

Third, it depends on what the charge is. If you are charged with a 3(g) offense or sex crime that is beyond the scope of this post (call a lawyer). District court judges deal with serious criminal cases every day. This produces both a familiarity and objectivity that may be lacking in the venire member. Whereas most jurors have not seen an alleged meth dealer before, judges see a never ending revolving door of suspected felons.

Why do defendants want a bench trial?
To restate, I advise the defendant and she makes the choice between a judge or jury. Besides the earlier considerations many defendants are looking for the quickest resolution to their case.
Bench trials are hands down quicker and less stressful for defendants.

For example, a typical DWI bench trial is a day or less. A DWI jury trial is usually at least 2-4 days. Without a jury there is no voir dire, no jury charge, no need to constantly excuse the jury for evidentary rulings etc, no need to wait during deliberations etc.

There is also a real jury phobia among some defendants. No one wants to be put on display, judged by the public, ridiculed by prosecutors etc. For defendants with anxiety disorders, shyness, mental illness, or just an akward appearance this is a real consideration.

I work with my clients to minimize the fear of the unknown with a jury trial. It's not easy. I was nervous at my first jury trial, and I was the lawyer. I can only imagine how defendants feel.

Readers of this blog know that I am on a personal mission to inform the public of their 5th Amendment rights. If the police ever ask you about illegal activity of any kind, ask for an attorney. If you are Mirandized ask for a lawyer and shut up.

CLEAT is the Texas cop lobby. They have a disastrous two pronged legislative agenda-increase the presence and power of law enforcement in Texas (more crimes, less freedom, higher penalties) while at the same time sweeping LEO malfeasance under the rug. Great guys, these Cleaters.

CLEAT also provides legal advise to their membership. What does CLEAT tell cops to do if they are under investigation for criminal wrongdoing?

All law enforcement officers know and understand Miranda Warnings. They know the importance of Miranda and when to give a suspect their Miranda Warnings. But what if you are the person that is being read Miranda, do you know what to do? The answer is simple, inform the investigator that you are a CLEAT member, you are represented by counsel then remain silent until your attorney arrives. Additionally never agree to voluntarily waive your Constitutional Rights until you have first consulted with an attorney. "But if I don't agree to talk with the investigator or if I ask for a lawyer I will look guilty". I don't know why law enforcement officers believe this but they do. Remember, it doesn't matter what the investigator thinks, it is better to remain silent then to say something that may come back to haunt you later.

Remember kids, when it comes to to talking to the police, do what the police would do and ask for a lawyer. Even cops know not to talk to cops.

I have discovered the precise formula to measure the outrage felt by liberty minded individuals over a news event regarding government malfeasance.

EA x SOL= $#@!

EA= the enforcement action taken by the government. Basically, what means are used to achieve the government's goal. The lower end would of this scale would be public service announcements, at the higher end waterboarding at GITMO.

SOL= Stupidity of law. How stupid is the law being enforced? My feelings about consensual crimes are well known. At the low end of this scale would be crimes with actual victims, the higher end would include malum prohibitum offenses. The highest score would probably be revenue generation "crimes" like truancy enforcement.

$#@! is the outrage felt by people who value liberty, privacy, freedom etc.

This video would probably achieve one of the highest values possible (until we send a DISD truant to GITMO).

Visit SWATReform.org to find out how to help.

Last Friday I attended the DWI Innocence Project at the Belo Mansion downtown. It was good to see some old friends, and make some new ones. Blood topics were hot this year with more agencies choosing GITMO style forced blood draws over actual DWI investigation.

Side Note- If DWI suspects are so obviously intoxicated, why are blood draws necessary?

Gas Chromotography for Dummies
Dr. Gary Wimbish did a good job explaining how they figure out how much hooch is in your blood. Gas chromatogarphy (GC) is the process by which a BAC is computed from your B.

To summarize- It's complicated. Complicated science has a way of being glossed over by law enforcement. Actually investing a result gets in the way of convicting DWI suspects.

As an ADA when I received a DWI case in intake the breath score was the first thing I checked. I didn't have enough information (or time) to rigorously investigate the result. I wasn't taught enough about the machine to look for errors. I only learned to critically examine the machine as a defense lawyer.

I never attended any blood seminars by TDCAA. If tradition holds prosecutors will be taught how to steal blood, not how to investigate individual blood results for accuracy. Prosecutors have a lot of DWI cases and are under pressure to convict for their promotions. What would an ADA gain by spending hours investigating one blood test result? You don't become a chief prosecutor by dismissing DWI blood cases.

Unlike the fake quack science of say, field sobriety testing, blood lab work requires precision and expertise. Any error can invalidate the results. The problem for defendants is that challenging blood work is prohibitively expensive. It's not an area that defense lawyers can easily tackle without expert assistance.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of defendants can not afford the experts needed to investigate or challenge blood results. The State has an on call prosecutor friendly expert ready to help convict DWI suspects. A comparable expert is going to cost a defendant at least a thousand dollars.

Most defendants gather every available nickel to afford a competent lawyer they trust. There is rarely any money left for experts. What kind of justice system provides a professional advocate expert to only one side? If we are going to allow forced blood evidence then we need to start appointing defense blood experts.

Kaufman is the county east of Dallas. Kaufman county is served by three major east-west highways; I-20, 175, and I-80. These highways see a steady flow of Dallas commuters, locals driving to Dallas and back for entertainment, Shreveport gamblers, and drug couriers. Basically, money comes from the east to Dallas, drugs flow out of Dallas towards Atlanta.

Kaufman law enforcement officers (LEO) dutifully carry on the futile sysiphean quest of highway drug interdiction. KC LEOs regularly intercept drug couriers and most of the cases shape up the same way. Let's look at the similarities.

Dirty license plates and out of state plates
LEO only needs reasonable suspicion of any traffic violation before pulling a driver over. The pretext stop classic in KC is the dirty license plate light. If you are driving with Louisiana plates I'd suggest you check your license plate light before entering Kaufman county.

What were you doing in Dallas?
Kaufman LEOs know that Dallas is the the Sam's Wholesale club of narcotics. If you are on a quick one or two day trip to Dallas the cops are going to assume you are riding dirty.

In Texas you are under no obligation to share travel plans with police. It's always better to shut up than ramble on. If the driver has any criminal history LEO won't believe the story anyway. Popular reasons for Dallas travel are job interviews and family functions. If you are going to tell the police you went to a family reunion over the weekend but you don't have any luggage in the car that raises a red flag.

Sit down and shut up
LEO can smell fear. Cops equate nervousness with guilt. If a suspect is over talking, has shaking hands, or gets out of the car before the police walk up it's usually downhill from there.

The Consent Search
Once LEO hears your lame ass trip to Dallas story and sees your hands shaking he will move in for the kill- the consent search request. I've written about this ad naseum. Here is the cliffs notes version- never, ever, give LEO permission to search your car.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

Justice Louis Brandeis

The DWI roadblock bill (SB 298) is scheduled for a hearing Wednesday afternoon. We are running out of opportunities to defeat this dangerously misguided legislation. MADD is close to achieving their magnum opus; the suspicionless harassment and detention of innocent Texas motorists.

Politicians may not realize that opposing roadblocks does not mean one supports drunk driving. Instead, opposition to roadblocks is an affirmation that freedom and privacy has value. Texans deserve the simple liberty of not being assumed guilty of DWI.

Currently, Texas drivers who can obey every one of our state's numerous traffic laws can traverse the state in peace. When 298 passes all motorists will be forced to dance for police on the side of road and prove themselves not intoxicated.

It is beyond naive to assume that the police can handle such awesome power responsibly. What happens when the Officer Powells of Texas are unleashed at a roadblock?

The exact time of the hearing hasn't been set. I want to encourage anyone with a love for freedom, privacy, or liberty to attend this hearing and speak out against this bill.

Will freedom die with a whimper? Or will you stand up against tyrannical neo prohibition police state MADDness?

Further reading-
The Roadblock Future
Radley Balko on MADD

Anyone who reads this blawg regulalry knows that I enjoy taking a current news story and adding some information on the law for the lay public, or some opinion not in the original piece (e.g. pot should be legal, the 4th Amendment matters).

News reaction is not the pinnacle of blawging. Grits, Simple Justice, and Defending People regularly pen original work on broader topics, or create news themselves. That's blawg gold. Recognizing the limitation of the form let's move on to the continuing saga of Judge Keller.

Today's DMN piece on Judge Sharon Keller's financial statement debacle leaves little for me to add. Instead, I'll just cut and paste a few sections. This is like mainlining irony.

The state's top criminal appeals court judge has amended her personal financial statement to disclose more than $2.4 million in property and income that she had not previously reported to the state, as required by law.

In a sworn statement filed in Austin earlier this week, Sharon Keller said she omitted more than two dozen properties, bank accounts, income sources and business directorships because her elderly father in Dallas had not told her about them.

Reasonable explanation right? Judge Keller is arguing that she lacks the mens rea required for culpability. Ergo, she wants to escape punishment for this oversight.
A late filing, with no ill intent, where could this possibly go...?

Cue Andrew Wheat-

Andrew Wheat, research director of Texans for Public Justice, an Austin watchdog group that filed the complaints over Keller's nondisclosures, suggested that the judge would not be swayed by other's pleas of sloppiness.

"If a defense attorney in a death penalty case before Judge Keller's court filed briefs as carelessly as Keller filed her financials, the client in question already would have been executed," he said.