Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

I'll be celebrating the 4th and not blogging tommorow.. However, the web is full of great writing to keep you entertained and informed. Here are some items to check out between hot dogs, fireworks, and JP Souza music.

Happy Birthday DEA
A great article by Russ Bellvile that celebrates the 35th anniversary of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Quoting Russ-

So the DEA turns thirty-five this week. That deserves a special celebration. Let’s bust out our handy-dandy calculator and the official government stats. Time to play Rate the DEA!

Today the DEA has twice the offices in twice the countries with four times the manpower than when it started thirty-five years ago. In 1973, the DEA had $0.075 billion to work with; today you have $2.3 billion. That’s an increase of 3,067%, or a dramatic thirty-fold increase. Just what have the American People received for this $31.4 billion dollar, thirty-five year investment?

Read the rest to see how the DEA rates (spoiler alert- they have failed miserably).

Intoxilyzer 5000 series by College Station Criminal Attorney Steven Gustitis
Steven does a great job breaking down the science and technology behind this machine. A great read for the lawyer and lay person alike. If you drink, and own a vehicle, you must read this series. This machine will be a chief witness against you and you have no right to counsel before taking a breath test.

Tickets or Traffic Tax?
The Star Telegram published my post on the tragic death of an incarcerated traffic ticket defendant. The comments section has some healthy debate on traffic tickets, public safety, and the right to counsel.

On SCOTUS
Cato has a great piece on the current Supreme Court Justices. Sadly, there is not one justice who upholds individual liberty for it's own sake. Not suprisingly conservative or liberal ideology motivate decisions as to what your rights are.

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 0 )

Posted In:

Bookmark:

Texas prosecutors and the Fort Worth police are planning to celebrate July 4th by mocking the freedom our country was founded on. It's another holiday DWI "no refusal" party and you're invited.

To celebrate the desecration of our Bill of Rights, here is an FAQ on DWI blood draw warrants.

What is a "no refusal" blood draw warrant?
If a DWI suspect refuses to give a breath sample officers will get a warrant to take the suspects blood by force.

What's wrong with that?
Where to start? First, there are no protections for DWI suspects. No due process. No right to counsel. They violate Texas law,the Bill of Rights, and the Texas Constitution. The legislature never approved blood warrants. They are judicial activism. Finally, prosecutors seek to hide this practice from the public.

There is no right to counsel?
No. Our courts have held that judges, cops, and prosecutors can conspire to take your bodily fluid and you have no right to counsel.

What is the procedure?
Prosecutors line up cooperative judges to rubber stamp fill in the blank warrants that are faxed in by police. (Yes, they really use fill in the blank warrants).

Do these really violate the Constitution?
Sure. Here is your Texas Constiution-

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall... not be compelled to give
evidence against himself

Blood would seem to be evidence in a DWI case. Forcing you to give meets most definitions of "compelling". Luckily, our prosecutor friendly appeals courts have held that "evidence" doesn't really mean "evidence." "Evidence" means testimony. Obviously.

How Do They Violate State Law?
You don't need a law degree to understand how forced blood draws violate Texas law.

§ 724.013. PROHIBITION ON TAKING SPECIMEN IF PERSON REFUSES; EXCEPTION. Except as provided by Section 724.012(b), a specimen may not be taken if a person refuses to submit to the taking of a specimen designated by a peace officer.

How is this judicial activism?
The law and our Constitution forbid these forced blood draws. Texas prosecutors could have lobbied the legislature to pass a law and amend the Texas Constitution to allow these blood draws. Instead, prosecutor made an end run around the law and got pro-State judges to create new law.

What if you refuse to allow the officer's to take your blood?
As you would expect, this process born from tyranny, ends with police brutality. The police hold you down while a needle is stuck in your arm. Assaulting suspects to steal their blood is un-American and degrades the criminal justice system. The more we "get tough" on DWI, the more we treat DWI suspects like GITMO detainees.

How can I learn more?
You can't. Prosecutors love to brag about these forced blood draws on their message board. However, they will routinely fight open records request to disclose the details of this practice.

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 7 )

Posted In: DWI , Police , Texas Laws

Bookmark:

I'm back from Rusty Duncan. I spent Saturday on Lake Travis and had a great time. Austin is a wonderful city and a great place to spend a weekend. Maybe I could franchise someday and have an Austin branch.

Ethics
Like most CLE seminars the Rusty Duncan conference had some speakers on attorney ethics. I was embarrassed to learn that criminal defense lawyers had the most grievances in 2007. I hope the defense bar will take a hard look at the practices that commonly lead to grievances.

Pitfalls of a Volume Practice
I believe most of the problems are from poor practice management. Defense lawyers are taking too many cases for too small a fee. This mass of cases makes it impossible to provide attention to each client and case.

One of the reasons I do not charge the lowest fees is so I can prepare every case like there will be a trial. Experience teaches that most criminal cases end in a plea bargain. However, if you can prepare each case like a trial is inevitable you will get better plea bargain results.

I think many attorney charge low fees assuming the case will plead guilty and treat the case accordingly. This causes problems from not returning client phone calls, to not investigating the facts accordingly.

Communication
A common claim is failure to communicate with the client. Attorneys have an ethical duty to keep the client reasonably informed. I receive many phone calls from defendants whose attorney would not call them back. This is one of the reasons I give my clients my cell phone number and email address. I have policies on what calls should be placed to my office (when is my court date?), and when cell phone calls are appropriate (the FBI is here with a warrant!)

However, I purposefully limit my caseload to maintain communication. The criminal justice system causes great stress for defendants. The simple fear of the unknown is a major cause of client unrest. The more questions I answer, the better the client feels.

No Contract
Another mistake that leads to grievances is a failure to have a written contact. Having no contract is not a violation per se. However, the lack of certainty about fees and the scope of representation leads to other problems. I have a written contact that is under constant revision. I have competing desire to keep it short and simple, while also leaving no room for misunderstanding.

Conflict Of Interest
If you are charged with possession and there is a codefendant you should both have separate defense counsel. Why? If there is a trial, both parties have an interest in saying the dope belonged to the other party. An attorney can't zealously represent both clients in this situation.

This is professional responsibility 101, but often defense attorneys will try and find some way to represent both defendants. This is a common problem with family members and married/dating couples. Understandably, they often want the same attorney. It is the attorney's duty to recognize this conflict and avoid representing co defendants.

Some Grievances Are Frivolous
There are some great attorneys who have been grieved frivolously. The common scenario is a court appointed defendant who receives a long jail sentence. Someone serving 20 years in TDC has a long time to write a grievance. Claims without merit are dismissed early in the grievance process. An attorney who has had a grievance filed against them may be a wonderful lawyer with a bad client. So don't read too much into dismissed grievances.

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 1 )

Posted In:

Bookmark:

I'm in San Antonio for the Rusty Duncan conference. This is my first RD and I am very impressed with the quality of the speakers. Here are some quick thoughts.

1. I think I saw Mark Bennett, philosopher/attorney. I expected him to be dressed more like Socrates.

2. There was a speech by Cathy Cochran on unanimous verdicts. We didn't meet.

3. Keith Hampton is a hell of an attorney.

4. Even though the Court of Criminal Appeals often rules against the defense, some of the best legal scholars in Texas works tirelessly on defense appeals.

5. Field Sobriety Tests are BS (you already knew that).

6. Drug Recognition Experts are even more BS than field sobriety tests.

7. There are a lot of vendors at our conference. They can be divided into three groups. Those who want to help our clients (selling books, manuals), those who want to punish our clients (interlock devices etc), and those who want to help get us clients (internet marketers).

8. San Antonio is really hot, and the riverwalk is a tourist trap, but I love it.

9. I saw someone on a Segway. Weren't those supposed to change the world?

10. The iPhone has taken over the criminal defense field. At least 25% of all cell phones here are iPhones.

If you're here, send me an email. I'll be at the luncheon tomorrow.

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 1 )

Posted In:

Bookmark:

Great news! The Court of Criminal Appeals is tabling their decision to delete the special rule of attorney client privilege in criminal cases. alternative.

From Texas Lawyer

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has defused a heated debate that has raged in blogs and e-mails to CCA judges over a proposal to eliminate a special rule of privilege in criminal cases. CCA Judge Cathy Cochran says the state's highest criminal court unanimously decided June 16 to defer the proposed deletion of Texas Rule of Evidence 503(b)(2) at least six months to allow ample opportunity for all interested parties to draft a proposed substitute for that rule or to draft a rule or statute to govern the attorney work-product doctrine....

On June 6, Kaufman criminal-defense solo Robert Guest sounded the alarm about the CCA's plans to eliminate Rule 503(b)(2) on his blog, www.dallascriminaldefenselawyer.com. "This special rule has protected Texans since 1856. There is no reason to change it," Guest wrote.

In his posting Guest provided the e-mail addresses of six CCA judges and urged his readers to send comments on the proposed rule change.

TDCLA also e-mailed a message written by Hampton to all members of the association, urging the criminal-defense bar to e-mail or write the CCA judges and tell them not to change the rule. "Tell them to leave it alone," Hampton writes in the message, which also provides the e-mail addresses of six CCA judges.

Cochran estimates that she received as many as 50 e-mails from opponents of the proposal to eliminate Rule 503(b)(2). "Nobody had a clue that this would be controversial," she says.

But Guest says, "Deleting 503(b)(2) is a solution looking for a problem. It will further erode what little protections defendants have in Texas."

You did it! Thanks to Grits, The Agitator, Ellis County Observer and others who picked up the story. The public came through and sent over 50 emails to Judge Cochran. This internet activism has at least postponed the repeal of 503(b)(2) and may be enough to save it. Now we just have to work to draft a new rule, or convince COCA to actually keep and apply the old rule.

I'll have more on this later. I'm packing for Rusty Duncan, and I have a ticket trial tomorrow before I can leave for SA.

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 1 )

Posted In: Texas Laws

Bookmark:

I just read the post on Grits about the Rothgery case. The opinion is 49 pages and I won't have time to go through the whole thing today. However, the holding could have positive implications for shutting down the practice of DWI forced blood draw warrants.

"A criminal defendant’s initial appearance before a magistrate judge, where he learns the charge against him and his liberty is subject to restriction, marks the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings that trigger attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Attachment does not also require that a prosecutor (as distinct from a police officer) be aware of that initial proceeding or involved in its conduct. Pp. 5–20."

It's not a far leap from that holding to ruling that when the police, prosecutors, and "friendly" judges team up to sign blood warrants that the defendant should have the right to an attorney. After all the prosecutor is involved, the defendant knows the charge against him, and that his liberty is subject is restriction. Yet another reason these blood draws should be unconstitutional.

And finally, Jon Bradley is already promoting a seminar to work around this ruling (and your 6th Amendment rights). Is anyone surprised? From JB

This case makes it even more important that law enforcement understand the advantage of noncustodial interviews. There will now clearly be no opportunity to interview at the jail following arrest, as a 6th Amendment attachment is much more difficult to overcome.

So, make plans to attend a regional seminar on Confessions this summer. Learn how to avoid the litigation of Miranda. See how easy it is to get a noncustodial confession that will be accepted by the court and jury.

Are there any TDCAA seminars where we don't teach prosecutors how to work around the law? Really.

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 3 )

Posted In:

Bookmark:

I'm on a streak of sorts. My last two Motion's to Suppress in marijuana cases have been granted. Like any other criminal defense attorney I have had more than a few MTS denied. However, as a NORML legal committee member marijuana victories are especially satisfying.

Aggregating these cases produces some general advise on being stopped and searched.

First, cops will often try and trick you into granting permission to search your car. You should NEVER let the police search your vehicle.

Why? The cop might be crooked, your friends might be drug users, and the officer has already decided you are a criminal.

Look out for this typical line the cops use to get your consent to search.

Cop- "You don't have any guns, meth, hand grenades, or dead bodies in your car do you?"
You- "No."
Cop- "Then you don't mind if I search your vehicle."
You- "Actually I do mind. Am I free to go now?"

See the trick. The cop is implying that only a person with something to hide would deny permission to search. He wants you to say "No, I don't mind" before you have a chance to think about it." In this case the correct answer is "Yes I do mind".

Cops rarely ask for permission to search in a straight forward manner. They often backdoor their search request because they don't care about informing you of your rights- they want to search and they want your consent. The police only ask for consent to search because they think you are a criminal. They are lacking that pesky "probable cause" to search, and they want you to consent so they can search anyway.

Asserting your rights will often make the police angry. Here is a typical response.

You- "I do not want you to search my car."
Cop- "Well, if you have nothing to hide why can't I search?"
You- "Am I free to leave?"
Cop- "If you don't let me search I am going to bring out the drug dog!"
You- "Am I free to leave?"

At that point the cop is left with a decision on whether to actually call out the K9 unit, or let you go. Don't feel bad for him. He is the one who caused this problem.

Starting asking cops if you are free to leave. Cops hate this, but it is important. During a traffic stop the police should only be investigating traffic violations. They will inquire about the violation, check your DL and insurance, and look for warrants. If the police start asking about drugs, it is because they think you have them. Not because they like you.

Finally, never try and stop an officer from searching. That's always a bad idea. Even if you think he is acting illegally the side of the road isn't the place to correct bad officer behavior.

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 5 )

Posted In: Marijuana , Police

Bookmark:

No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt. Texas Constitution Article I Section 18

A tragic death in Tarrant County highlights the need to reform Texas traffic ticket laws. From CBS 11 news-

Ten days into serving her sentence at the Tarrant County Jail, a Fort Worth woman died.

Police say Adrienne Lemons was serving time for unpaid traffic tickets. The 35-year-old was rushed to John Peter Smith Hospital on June 13, where she later died. Lemons leaves behind a 3-year-old child.

Lemons' family said she was not receiving the medication she needed for a serious medical condition.

In Texas traffic tickets do not contain jail as a possible punishment. No judge can sentence a traffic ticket defendant to any period of jail time. Nevertheless thousands of Texans are jailed annualy over traffic violations. How is this possible?

Two ways. The first is when a defendant does not appear at this traffic ticket court date and a failure to appear/warrant is issued. Second, failing to pay fines can lead to a warrant for the payment of those fines.

These unjust policies reflect the truth about Texas traffic enforcement. Tickets are taxes and local government will incarcerate to maximize revenue. Talk about public safety is good PR. However, the truth is that county jails in Texas have become debtors prisons, and our police are human repo men for local governments.

Like other unjust policies this has a disparate impact on the poor. Ticket defendants who can not afford an attorney or the prohibitive ticket fines have no choice but to "sit out" their fines in the county jail.

Contradictory Supreme Court rulings allow Texas police to arrest for traffic offenses, and allows the State to deny court appointed counsel to the indigent.

Texas needs to reform this system before another innocent person dies in jail. First, we need to end the practice of incarceration for failure to pay ticket fines. We do not allow the government to incarcerate for failure to pay other taxes (property, sales etc) why should ticket taxes be different. Texas already has the ability to suspend your driver's license for non payment.

Second, if Texans decide that some traffic offenses (driving with no license etc) should require jail time as a possible punishment the we need to require court appointed counsel in those cases.

Such a system would have prevented Ms. Lemon's death, and prevented the fake ticket scandal in Dallas. Government greed has already cost one life. No one should be imprisoned for debt. Traffic tickets should not be a death sentence.

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 7 )

Posted In: Texas Laws

Bookmark:

Background- Read the original post
It seems that Texas prosecutors are in agreement that judges who do not sign off on their blood draw warrants must be removed. Police state apologist (and Williamson County DA) Jon Bradley weighed in with typical blood on the highway rhetoric.

A vehicle crashing into another vehicle, on the other hand, is considered a MAJOR intrusion into the life of an innocent person. If we wait for that to happen, then, amazingly, the prick of a needle is somehow "justified" to prove intoxication murder. For my money, I'd rather deal with forcing the MINOR intrusion before a drunk driver kills someone. So, tell that judge you are actually doing the defendant a favor. Then file the grievance.

A typical argument against constitutional protections for DWI suspects is to claim that it will save lives to make it easier to convict. Mr. Bradley's position is that if he could only replace this judge with a rubber stamp magistrate lives would be saved. This is a classic false dichotomy.

DWI enforcement is not a choice between liberty and death. Instead of being "tough on crime", destroying freedom, and convicting the innocent- law enforcement could use their resources more efficiently by focusing on the driver's likely to cause an accident.

Look at Fort Worth, they have implemented forced blood draws and an increase in DWI enforcement. The results? Convictions are up 40%, deaths are up 30%. We are arresting the wrong people uner a misguided belief that convictions alone save lives. It's simply not true.

Title of TDCAA thread-
Zealous DWI enforcement can make on oblivious to hypocrisy. The title of the TDCAA post is "Are magistrates supposed to be objective?" However, "objective" to this DPS trooper means a rubber stamp warrant signing judge. A real objective judge would recognize that she is not a law enforcement tool, but employed to exercise discretion.

Judicial Complaint
It's disturbing that Texas prosecutors would propose filing a judicial complaint when a judge rules against them. DWI hysteria and "tough on DWI" indoctrination seminars has made prosecutors like Bradley zealots for conviction, when they are supposed to be seeking justice.

One prosecutor, Clay Abbott from Austin, notes the judge should be grieved for "not following the law." Mr. Abbott, here is the law on forced blood draws. Tell me how the judge is not following that law.

Finally, I'd like to share some information with these prosecutors from the Judicial Ethics Commission. From their website-

What is not judicial misconduct?
"Wrong" decisions by a judge are not misconduct, even if those decisions appear to fly in the face of the evidence or appear to be based upon "perjured" testimony, and even if the judge misapplies the law. Appeal may be the only remedy for such a situation, or there may be no remedy. Granting of custody or visitation, or setting child support are generally decisions within the discretion of the trial court. Any fine or sentence imposed by a judge in a traffic or criminal matter, if it is within the parameters set by law for the offense charged, is not usually a matter for Commission consideration.

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 1 )

Posted In: DWI

Bookmark:

An Austin DPS Trooper is furious that a magistrate refused to sign his blood draw warrant. His post provides a great insight into how cops view DWI arrests, magistrates, and your 5th Amendment rights.

Here is Michael.Scheffler@txdps.state.tx.us, in his own words.

Here's the scenario.... I made a DWI arrest last night in Austin. The driver refused any and all SFST's but showed plenty of indicators and admitted to drinking. He license in currently under ALR Suspension for a DWI arrest, also in Liberal County U.S.A, in March of this year. I explain to the driver that PC for the stop, my observations (and I tell him what they are) and his refusal to cooperate with SFST's leave me with no choice but to place him under arrest for DWI. He refused to respond so I gave him a pair of pretty silver bracelets.

Take him to Travis County Central booking and do affidavit for DWI and DWLI and an affidavit for a blood search warrant. Magistrate on duty signs both arrest affidavits and sets a pretty decent bond along with an order for an ignition interlock device. She then refuses the blood warrant because she feels that taking a person's blood, even with a court order, is extremely intrusive and should not be allowed. Told me that she is even hesitant on subsequents and felonies (I know this to be true because I had the same fight with her the previous night on a felony DWI). She told me that had the PC for the stop, Drove w/o Headlights, been something more aggravated like excessive speeding, ran a red light or driving the wrong way down 6th street, she would be more likely to sign the blood warrant. I tried to explain to her that the vast majority of DWI arrests are not made with "aggravated PC" as she described and that our job was to catch these drivers BEFORE they reach the point of hurting or killing someone. I also questioned how she could justify allowing someone to hide the evidence of a crime and she stuck with the idea that it is too personally intrusive.

My main concern, beyond the fact that we have no breath or blood evidence, is that a magistrate is being allowed to pontificate from the bench and, in my opinion, is acting more like a defense attorney than a judge. How is it that we can play by the rules and try to legally obtain evidence legally and a magistrate is allowed to inject her personal bias into the case? Seems like a conflict of interest to me.

DPS Troopers Need Your Help; To Convict You
First, this trooper suffers from the misguided belief that citizens are somehow obligated to assist in their own prosecution. We pay police officers to gather evidence and investigate criminal activity. They should not require the assistance of the accused to make their case.

You Leave Me No Choice
This suspect refuses to perform stupid human tricks for the officer (maybe the suspect knows the high failure rate for sober drivers). This cop responds like most officers who face suspects asserting their rights- with an arrest.The "you leave me no choice" statement is also sadly typical.

Every officer has a choice whether to arrest a suspect. "You leave me no choice" statements have always struck me as a cheap rationalization to deflect personal responsibility (for the injustice of arresting without evidence)

However, officers are taught that arresting without evidence is not only acceptable, but a life saving duty. DWI hysteria has replaced objectivity in police training.

Acting Like a Defense Attorney
Second, the trooper is shocked when a judge actually wants some objective DWI evidence in order to sign a blood warrant. Cops are so used to arresting without evidence they can't imagine why a judge would balk at signing a blood warrant. Never mind the warrants should be unconstitutional, and clearly violate Texas law.

The tropper is upset that the magistrate is acting more like a defense attorney than a judge. Pot meet kettle. I'm sure this same trooper has no problem when "friendly" magistrates set up fax machines to sign fill in the blank warrants for police, even though such behavior could be seen as "acting like a prosecutor."

Judge Must Be Removed
I don't know who this judge is. However, she has the courage to recognize the value of freedom, liberty, and privacy even in the face of DWI hysteria and an angry police officer. These values are more important than any DWI bust. This judge should be commended. However, at least one TDCAA commenter (prosecutor?) is asking that this judge be reported to the Judicial Ethics Commission. This judge hasn't done anything unethical. If the duty of prosecutor is not to convict, but to see that justice is done, why should this judge be removed?

Is this DWI bust so important that we must file frivolous judicial complaints against this judge?

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 5 )

Posted In: DWI , Police

Bookmark:

Appellate court decisions do not get much MSM coverage. As a public service I will try and break down recent Texas appellate court cases for the non attorney. (This process is made much easier by TCDLA SDR report).

I'm often hard on appellate courts for making decisions I disagree with. However, I want to start this section with some great appellate decisions.

Green v. State, 2008 WL 1822393 (Tex.App.-Waco Apr 23, 2008)

Facts- Cop searches defendants car for weapons. Cop has no warrant or probable cause. Cop sights ubiquitous officer safety (OS) justification. Cop let defendant re enter car, after Cop had removed defendant from car.

Holding- Search is illegal. OS is a legitimate reason to search for weapons. However, there has to a real concern for OS. Cop wouldn't have let defendant get back in a car if Cop thought defendant had a weapon in car.

I say- "Officer safety" is appearing in more and more police reports. Word has spread of among law enforcement that claiming OS will justify almost any search for weapons (drugs). I'm glad to see the court recognizing that OS is being abused to search for dope.

Korell v. State, 2008 WL 1827446 (Tex.App.-Austin Apr 24, 2008)

Facts- Defendant went along with Friend to a buy meth. Defendant helped Friend contact meth dealer. Defendant knew Friend was buying meth, and knew met was present at meth dealer's house. Defendant doesn't touch or buy any meth. Defendant is charged with possession of meth.

Holding-Knowing and/or helping with a drug deal does not make one guilty of possession. The right charge would have been delivery. Being guilty of delivery does not make one guilty of possession.

I say- It's great to see the court reject a drug conviction. It is not too much to require the state charge the right crime. Besides, we already have thousands of meth people in jail already. Way to go Austin!

King v. State, 2008 WL 1744026 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Apr 16, 2008)

Facts- Defendant had $30,000 in trunk. Police arrest Defendant for money laundering because he has a lot of cash. There is NO evidence that the money was proceeds from illegal activity.

Holding-Convinction overturned. Without any evidence of illegal activity there can not be any money laundering.

I say- Another great ruling! Because of the War on Drugs many police treat large sums of cash as contraband. It is great to see the court recognize that transporting money, even a lot of money, does not make one a criminal.

Orand v. State, 2008 WL 1700149 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Apr 10, 2008)
Facts- Defendant is indicted for Indecency. ELEVEN years later, Defendant learns of charges and turns himself in.

Holding- Defendants speedy trial rights were violated.

I say- Old cases are hard to prosecute. Indecency charges are hard to defend. In this case the court recognized that it is impossible to have a fair trial on such a charge after more than a decade has passed since indictment.

Padilla v. State, 2008 WL 1746729 (Tex.App.-Eastland Apr 17, 2008)

Holding- Miniature statute of baby Jesus was found to be a "deadly weapon."

I say- I have nothing to add.

These are decisions Texans can feel good about (except maybe the last one). Texas courts have made the criminal justice system better by getting rid of bad convictions. Decisions like these keep us all safe by protecting the innocent and holding the government to a higher standard. Well done.

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 1 )

Posted In: Texas Laws

Bookmark:

RACIAL PROFILING PROHIBITED. A peace officer may not engage in racial profiling.

This begs the question- What is racial profiling?

From the Code of Criminal Procedure-

law enforcement-initiated action based on an individual's race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than on the individual's behavior or on information identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal activity.

Texas racial profiling law also requires each law enforcement agency to keep statistics for each officer. The number of arrests, searches, tickets, and warnings are broken down by the race of the suspect. It is then up to the public to examine this information to discover any possible profiling.

Here are the RP stats for Kaufman County DPS troopers.

How To Order Racial Profiling Stats For Your County
Very simple process. Just send an email to pio@txdps.state.tx.us, and request racial profiling statistics for all officers in your county. The information comes in excel, so you shouldn't have to pay anything.

More How-To Open Records Posts
Open Records 101
Open Records 102

Posted by Robert Guest | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments ( 6 )

Posted In: Kaufman County , Open Records , Police , Texas Laws

Bookmark: