Articles Posted in Police

In Texas our pro conviction appellate courts have blessed the practice of law enforcement profiling drivers and investigating routine traffic stops as drug trafficking.  This practice involves an officer deciding that you are a drug dealer and then following you until you commit a traffic violation.

I thought racial profiling was illegal in Texas?

It is. But to get anywhere with that you an officer honest or dumb enough to testify that race was a factor in his investigation. LEO learns quickly to keep those thoughts to himself. Our numerous traffic laws allow great cover for profiling. DPS knows to just follow who they want to stop until they can find some evidence of a traffic violation. That’s considered great police work in Texas. We allow and encourage non-racial profiling. Which means a DPS Trooper can list any reason but race as a reason to follow you and wait for a traffic violation and then search for drugs.

So a detective has called you up and invited you down to the local police sheriff’s department for an interview? When you arrive they will tell you that you are free to go at any time, and that they just want to get your side of the story. THIS IS A TRAP. Here’s how it works.

First, they only tell that you are free to go so they do not have to Mirandize you. You have to be under arrest and/or in custody for your Miranda warnings to apply. By telling you that you are free to go, they can ask whatever they want without telling you about your right to remain silent, or right to end questioning, or right to have an attorney present. They do this because the do not want you to have a lawyer there. They want to trick you into confessing.

Second, the “get your side of the story” line is meant to diffuse your anxiety. The detective wants you to think that they are going to help you and that they have an open mind as to what you tell them. Here’s the deal, before you show up the detective has already decided if they think you are guilty. Nothing you say will change their mind. They are going to take parts of your story that fit their theory of how are you guilty and assume those are true, they are also going to assuming you are lying if you make statements that don’t fit their theory that you are guilty. It is a lose-lose situation.

CLEAT, the largest police union in Texas, has developed a new app to help law enforcement officers across Texas. Now what should be a standard feature in a police app? The traffic code? Yelp listings for breakfast nearby? A list of the most wanted criminals? The local unofficial ticket quota? The best way to “lose” video evidence?

How about the ability to quickly lawyer up after you shoot someone one? Because that’s what CLEAT put in their app.


If there is one thing law enforcement hates, it’s the 4th Amendment’s requirement to get a warrant before searching. The reason? Warrants require an officer to have probable cause, and to explain said probable cause (in writing) before getting what they want (searching your house, stealing your blood etc). Warrants provide some degree of accountability for LEO, a very minor check on the almost limitless power of the State. Today let’s talk about searching your body, specifically your veins. In our DWI police state your blood is merely another piece of evidence for the State to gather, and they will hold you down GITMO style to do so.

The Supreme Court recently decided a case called McNeely vs. Missouri, which upheld the controversial position that holding down a DWI suspect and taking his blood without consent is a search, and a warrant is required unless there is some kind of emergency. I say this in controversial because a) prosecutors and law enforcement hate this idea and b) the Constitution usually doesn’t apply to DWI suspects.

So the Supreme Court rules on this blood search issue and now it’s up to Texas’ appellate courts to uphold this Constitutional safeguard. The problem is our appellate courts are largely pro-conviction police-state judicial activists who want the Government to win on appeal. Don’t believe me, today’s case of the day is Reeder Vs State from the Texarkana Court of Appeals.

If you work in criminal justice long enough you see situations in which rules are broken often. Defendants break rules and face the unbridled wrath of the criminal justice system (which seeks to take their money, time, and sometimes freedom). But what happens when the Government breaks rules? More often than not, the Government changes the rules so that they don’t get caught again.

DPS is a good example. The “scientists” at DPS are notorious for rewriting the breath test guidelines whenever the rules become too burdensome or difficult. That is, whenever the system can not clear the embarrassingly low hurdles it sets for itself to insure credibility, it moves the goal posts. Rather than trying to say, quit breaking rules, the Government forgives itself and moves on. It’s similar to the “harmless error” analysis that our pro-conviction authoritarian judicial activist appellate courts have taken. The Defendant makes a mistake and pays with his freedom, the Government violates the Constitution and it’s “no harm no foul” (with former prosecutors deciding what “harm” is”). The only truly accountable actor in society today is the individual, the Government need not be bothered by pesky things like laws, rules, or the Constitution. But I digress.

The latest example comes from the Dallas Police Department. Bobby Bennett is mentally ill and his mom called the cops for help (a larger issue we will skip is the intersection of the mental health and criminal justice system). The shooter, DPD Officer Cardan Spencer, lawyered up and waited to give a statement about what happened (even cops know not to talk to cops if you are suspected of possible wrongdoing). Meanwhile Spencer’s partner at the scene, Christopher Watson, gave a statement that said Bennett “aggressively approached” Spencer with a knife. Bennett was arrested and charged with aggravated assault.

It’s another No-Refusal weekend across the Metroplex. That means cops are going to seek blood warrant, and hold you down and take your blood vampire style. Murica!

First, let’s remember how we got here. The legislator passed laws limiting the ability of officer’s to hold you down and steal your blood.That wasn’t good enough for our convict-at-all-costs prosecutors, who got activist judges to effecitvely destroy the protections that were in place.

So now officers will fax their fill-in-the-blank warrants to friendly Judge Rubberstamp to take your blood, because the system needs arrests so we can justify more government employees and higher budgets fora agencies.

Texas has a lot of terrible laws, but one thing we don’t allow is DWI checkpoints. The Supreme Court has decided that these can be constitutional but the state legislature must approve them. Hopefully ours never will. In case you ever think they are a good idea, here is what we are missing.

Economics is the study of scarcity and choices. That is, the world has a limited amount of stuff, so what are we going to do about it? One of those limited resources is law enforcement. We only have so many police man-hours in any given year, how are we going to allocate this limited resource?

Recently, Dallas has seen a rise in the number of family violence related homicides and DPD is facing pressure to “do something”. Limited resource, plus choice = a new effort to focusing on clearing warrants for those charged with violent offenses.

From DMN-

A few months ago I took Lance Platt’s SFST certification course for attorneys. We had mostly defense lawyers and some prosecutors in the room. I didn’t come into this with clean hands. My experience with DWI cases and research of these “tests” tells me they are voodoo bullshit.

I came to this conclusion because as I understood the SFST studies they lacked the markers of real science and quality research; control groups, blind studies, placebos etc. Did you know the field sobriety tests have never been tested on a large groups of individuals who have not been drinking? Or on individuals with different medical conditions? There have been exactly zero studies on gender differences, or on the effect of performing the tests under the stress to mimic the pressure of a typical roadside DWI investigation. Why?

SFST’s are agenda driven science. The feds needed a way to arrest people who had been drinking, but without any bad or impaired driving behavior. So they invented the notion that by performing 10 minutes of balancing tests you can tell if someone is over .08.

Here’s a paragraph that makes my libertarian blood boil.

So, while the initial stop itself was illegal (emphasis mine), Grijalva never went beyond the bounds of what would have been constitutionally permissible had the stop in fact been justified at its inception. Under these circumstances, applying the law, as we have explicated it in this opinion, to the undisputed facts of the case in our de novo review, we conclude that the behavior of the arresting officers, although clearly unlawful at the outset, was not so particularly purposeful and flagrant that the discovery of the appellee’s outstanding arrest warrants may not serve to break the causal connection between the illegal stop and the discovery of the ecstasy in the appellee’s pants pocket, thus purging the primary taint.

The cops acted illegally, but that’s ok. Ugh.

Today’s case of the day is Mazuca vs. State, from El Paso.

Contact Information