Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

I don't have any inside information on the TABC Rainbow club raid. I did notice that the TABC was checking for public intoxication when they swarmed the gay bar in Fort Worth.

I've received a decent number of inquiries from PI defendants who claim to have been abused or unlawfully arrested by law enforcement.

I've had enough experience with criminal law to know that not every tale of police misconduct is accurate. I've also had enough experience with law enforcement to know that PI can be a great cover for malfeasance.

What makes PI so ripe for abuse?

First, it provides a built in defense for the cops- "This guy was drunk". It goes straight to the credibility of the defendant/victim. No one likes drunks, so the police can slander you just by arresting you.

Second, our appellate courts have expanded the definition of what a PI is to cover nearly any situation in which a person is in public and has been drinking. Having no standard allows the police to arrest whoever pisses them off and call it PI.

Third, PI cases rarely have video evidence. Usually the only witnesses are cops, the defendant, and maybe the defendant's friends.

I had a PI case in Fort Worth dismissed recently. A quick thinking friend of the defendant filmed the arrest on his phone. Guess what? No one was intoxicated. The defendant wasn't guilty of PI, but POP. He pissed off the police by refusing to talk with them and was arrested for PI.

What's the law on public intoxication?
From 49.02 Texas Penal Code-

(a) A person commits an offense if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that the person may endanger the person or another.

That seems like a fairly high bright line standard that requires a showing of danger to someone. Fortunately for police our pro conviction appellate courts have expanded this law to the point of absurdity.

Here are two cases that highlight the transformation of PI in Texas.

Where defendant was walking down the middle of the street in the middle of night, appeared glassy-eyed and unsteady on his feet, arrest for public intoxication in violation of Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.02(a) was proper. Williams v. State, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 3314 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. June 26 1997).

This is a standard prosecutors cite often, that if you stumble while walking you are PI. This one decision created a new crime in Texas, stumbling after drinking in public.

It gets even worse...

A person commits the offense of public intoxication if that person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the degree that he may endanger himself or another; the danger need not be immediate, it is sufficient if the accused renders himself or others subject to potential danger. Null v. State, 1997 Tex. App. LEXIS 2646 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. May 15 1997).

Remember, it's not legislating from the bench when you expand the scope of a criminal law beyond recognition, that's strict constructionism. The statute doesn't mention "potential danger", but pro conviction judges took out the magic appellate marker and added it.

Overbroad laws invite abuse and subject the public to arbitrary harassment. If you have a violent, homophobic, or just an asshole of a cop and you give him the arbitrary power to arrest anyone for PI you can expect violent, homophobic and assholic behavior.

The problem is amplified when you add the mutaween zeal of TABC officers. I've never seen grown men so exited to raid teenage keg parties or arrest bartenders. Really, no one cares guys. It's bad enough we subsidize TABC strip club "undercover" operations. TABC's new policy of raiding bars for PI enforcement has disaster written all over it.

Texans need the "old" PI law back, and protection from the moral busybodies at TABC.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From 298-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Grits inspired post.

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

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

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

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

Story time. Two weeks ago I went on a day trip to the wonderful Fossil Rim Wildlife park in Glen Rose. FR offers a family friendly safari. Like going to Africa without the shots or airfare.

Drivers trek through the Texas hill country tossing food pellets to zebras, giraffes, deer, and sinister ostriches. A giraffes sticking his head in your car should be on everyone's bucket list. I highly recommending FR for anyone who loves nature, and loves sitting in a car while enjoying nature (check, and check).

What should have been a pleasant day trip was interrupted by the Keene, Texas police department. I have never been to Keene, Texas but I speak with certainty when I say that this is a town full of ne'erdowells. Who else would set up a speed trap to steal money from unsuspecting drivers?

I was not driving. A relative who shall remain nameless (attorney/client privilege) guided our car south on 67. It was a uneventful trip until I noticed a police car make a wild u turn through the median and speed off in our direction.

I wondered what the emergency was? Was this officer going to stop a bank robbery or help a citizen in distress? My idyllic notions were shattered when I noticed the cop pulling up behind our car. The emergency was purely financial. Unlike business or individuals who get by on hard work and industry Keene, Texas needed to steal some money.... now.

To enhance their ability to tax drivers the zealots of Keene, Texas have lowered their speed limit to 50 mph on highway 67. The speed limit was a reasonable 65 or 60 on the rest of 67.

Mind you, this is a 4 lane divided highway. It doesn't go through any neighborhoods, there are no red lights or school zones. Finally, there was only one obscure speed limit sign to warn you of the upcoming robbery.

The officer walked up to the car and asked the ubiquitous "is there a reason you are driving so fast?" The driver was polite and handed the required insurance and DL. The officer dutifully checked the license for warrants and came back armed with a citation.

Then Keene's finest went from zealous bureaucrat to philosopher and announced "those speed limit signs are there for your benefit."

"Really?" I thought. You, Mr. Cop, get a badge, a gun, a car, and a nice paycheck to harass drivers for the sole purpose of raising money for the local government and the speed limit is for our benefit. Surely you jest. Self awareness is in short supply at the Keene PD.

I know I am painting with broad strokes. The officer didn't say speed limit signs are "only" there for our benefit, or that he (cop) received no benefit. However, the insult was that this cop wanted a thank you from speed trap victims. It's bad enough that the fine is potentially over $150, they could have kept the smug paternalism.

The militarization of our police force is complete. Dallas Police are using a freakin' helicopter to find an orange painted streaker on Katy Trail.

A few questions-

1. How hard is it to catch someone who is a) naked and b) painted orange! Maybe if cops weren't so busy meeting their daily ticket quota they could spend more time patrolling Katy trail.

2. How much do you think this costs in fuel alone? What's next, using the chopper if kids are toilet papering a house? This was some weird exhibitionist stunt, not a terror attack. There should be evidence of some threat to public safety before we fire up the DPD copter.

Let's see DPD keeps a straight face explaining their overreaction.
Oh, wait, they already did.

Dallas police expressed concern over the incident. "This is very offensive and something that is not funny, not funny at all," Senior Cpl. Janice Crowther told KXAS-TV.

I have to disagree. This is high comedy. Maybe Sascha Cohen doing a bit on Katy trail. I'm worried Senior Cpl. Crowther can't find the humor in her occupation. Here is a clip just for her.

Austin's police chief Art Acevedo, has a plan to expand DNA testing to everyone suspected of a crime. Current law restricts DNA testing to certain felony convictions.

Art's scheme would mean that the innocent arrested would have their genetic code on file in a government database for over eager bureaucrats and cops to pour over at will.

First, being arrested for a crime should not give rise to the forfeiture of one's genetic code. Innocent Texans are arrested every day.

Second, our Texas crime labs are plagued by incompetence and a bias towards helping the state convict. Our state struggles to honestly and accurately maintain relatively simple DWI breath machines. Adding a massive DNA database to an already broken system would only compound the problem.

Finally, the Supreme Court's Herring decision means that the state has no incentive to maintain a DNA database with any accuracy.

I couldn't find any actual bill filed related to this doltish idea. If a bill is filed, we must all speak out to prevent to stop this Orwellian disaster.

Here is the future if Art's vision becomes reality.

You get arrested for DWI. During the book in process you are required to submit a DNA sample. It's a weak case and you are found not guilty at trial.

Meanwhile, there is a unsolved murder with DNA evidence. A crime lab flunkie messes up the DNA samples. The lab tech wants to help the police convict someone so she covers up her mistakes. Her faulty lab tests names you as the killer.

A warrant is issued for your arrest. The police arrest you, and find a joint in your pocket. The DA knows the lab tech is incompetent and crooked, but the prosecutor doesn't inform your lawyer of this. After all, the prosecutor is immune from Brady violation lawsuits.

After a year in jail your defense lawyer finally gets a DNA retest and you are released. However, the state puts you on trial for that joint you had in your pocket, because in a post-Herring world database errors don't invalidate a warrant.

You are sentenced to the usual drug court probation nonsense with weekly NA classes. The stress of the situation leaves you unable to work or perform community service. So the judge throws you in jail for violating probation.

Further reading- Radley Balko on the epidemic of faulty science in criminal cases.

The rise of the paramilitary SWAT team is a testament to the failure of America's criminal justice system. It defines the transition from peace officers, to law enforcement.

One problem with giving the government the power to kick in doors while playing army is that the government can't be trusted to kick down the right doors. "New professionalism" advocates like Scalia would be shocked to learn how often the government wields the shock and awe power of the SWAT team at the wrong location.

Recently I file an open records request on Dallas SWAT wrong house raids. The first report I received detailed an incident from December 2005. The person involved didn't ask for blog publicity, so I won't reveal any personal information.

The victim's story-
The victim was at home with her son. The police came to her door demanding entry. The victim pointed out that they were at the wrong house. The police entered the home without pemission, pointed a gun at her son, and threatened to shoot her dog (Puppycide is epidemic among SWAT teams).

This complaint prompted an internal affairs investigation. IA interviewed the cops involved. Can you guess their version of events? Do you think the officer's testimony was all on the same page?

Cop's story
The officers admit to approaching and entering the wrong house. That's where the similarities end. The officers claim to have received permission to enter and search the house. Furthermore they deny pointing a gun at anyone and threatening to murder any dogs.

Amazingly, each police officer testified to the same version of events. That must make it true, right!

Inconclusive
How did internal affairs rule in this case? "Inconclusive" with "no violation of department rules." The main reason for this decision was "conflicting testimony." That is, the cops who entered the wrong house wouldn't admit to the other mistakes they made.

The standard applied by internal affairs was preponderance of the evidence. IA ruled there was not a 51% chance the victim's story was true.

IA obviously discounted the testimony of anyone who was not law enforcement. The victim wasn't a criminal, she was a citizen whose home was wrongfully invaded by SWAT. Is it not 51% possible she was telling the truth? Or is a police confession required?

This is why all police encounters, much less home invasion SWAT raids, should be recorded. Too often a criminal trial comes down to an officer's testimony. Just like IA many jurors will decide conflicting testimony in favor of the person in uniform.

More reading: Grits has this report on the Dallas Police no snitching culture.

More fun with my new copy of the Highway Patrol Operations Manual. I blogged earlier about how to handle a DPS/police request for a consent search during a traffic stop.

Here is what DPS has to say on the subject. This is what they are supposed to be doing during a traffic stop.

02.05.00 VIOLATOR INTERVIEW 05 .01 Troopers will follow the seven-step violator interview unless circumstances exist that make the use extraneous or nonapplicable. The steps will be used in the following order : 1 . Greeting and identification of the agency 2. Statement of violation committed 3. Identification of driver and check of conditions of violator and vehicle 4 . Statement of action to be taken 5 . Take action stated 6 . Explain what violator must do 7 . Leave

Hmmmm..... Some important steps are missing. Having viewed more than a few DPS traffic stops let me offer a more realistic "violator interview" protocol.

Violator Interview
1. Only stop vehicles you believe may have drugs in them. Try not to racially profile, but profile every other way you can.
2. After the stop think of a reason to justify said stop. If all else fails, allege the license plate light was not bright enough, or speeding.
3. Run the DL license and pray for an outstanding ticket warrant. If a warrant comes back arrest driver and start digging through the car!
4. If no warrant, pull the driver and passengers out of the car. Get into "good cop" character and ask if they have any hand grenades, dead bodies or drugs in car. Ignore yes answers on dead bodies or grenades, ask about drugs again. Remember, there is no War on Dead Bodies, or War on Hand Grenades. This is a drug war and you are the front line to stop consenting adults from using, selling, or possessing drugs! Finally, Mirandize no one, lest they realize they have the right to not answer these questions.
5. No confession? Ask for consent to search. Threaten to call out drug dog.
6. If permission is denied, ask again, but louder.
7. No consent? Consider writing a ticket, calling out the trained-to-alert drug dog, or arresting someone for no seat belt (Lago Vista).
8. Write a ticket, arrest, and/or search.

Today I received my new 841 page DPS general operations manual on CD. I thought I knew most of DPS' crime investigation techniques. This section on hypnosis took me by surprise.

25 .05 .00 GENERAL The use of hypnosis as an investigative tool for law enforcement is a fairly recent development. Although it was used for this purpose at various times, there was no concentrated effort to develop it as a practicable working tool until about 1970 when the use of hypnosis in several major cases by the Los Angeles Police Department caused a number of other police agencies to examine the possibility of such use . Currently many major police agencies are using hypnosis to some degree in criminal cases.

INVESTIGATIVE HYPNOSIS
05 .02 These guidelines are designed to outline the criteria to be
used in the selection and training of DPS personnel to use hypnosis
and the use of hypnosis by Department personnel .

There are further sections on how to run the hypnosis session, and who not to hypnotize (those with health conditions, and the defendant), and the various hypnotism related reports that are required. I will probably request the Hypnosis Oversight and Training Committee's reports to see if this program is actually in use.

My lay opinion is that hypnosis is quackery. However, if DPS officers are being instructed to consider hypnotizing witnesses I'll have to keep my cynicism in check and do some research.

Assuming hypnosis is real couldn't the hypnotist DPS officer influence the outcome. Isn't that the point of hypnosis? To make people quit smoking, lose weight, or otherwise influence their behavior?

Finally, the rule of evidence require that witnesses can only testify if they have "personal knowledge." Hypnosis would seem to stretch the limits of that definition to absurdity.

What do you think? Is this a valid crime fighting tool? Should we hypnotize witnesses?

I'm often surprised by the honesty of casual drug users. Too often they will confess their criminal indiscretions to the police. For example, many will consent to a police search of their car or volunteer that a joint is in a purse or glove box.

Why would anyone volunteer incriminating information? While not an exhaustive list, here are two reasons.

1. Fear/Guilt. When a cop pulls over a drug user the adrenaline of the situation leads many to confess to get the confrontation over with. They want the cop to quit their investigation. They hate the confrontation and uncertainty.

2. Cool Cop/De Minimis Arguments- A very misguided hope that their cop will be "cool" and let the suspect go. Related to the "I just had a joint in my car, I thought I would get a warning", de minimis justification.

Most people expecting a cool cop have a story to tell about another cop who was cool, and let them or a friend go. A word to the public- your cop is not cool.

Most officers, especially traffic enforcement (DPS etc) live for drug searches. If DWI is the capital murder of traffic stops, then finding drugs is like solving a bank robbery. Cops love finding drugs. Watching their excitement on film leads me to believe some get high on busting drug users.

Don't consent to a search or volunteer information about contraband. Consider, instead, asking for an attorney or refusing a consent search.

I know you are nervous. I know that you think the recreational use of drugs is not a reason to arrest someone. But cops don't think like that. The love arresting you, and they aren't cool.

Photographed outside the State Office of Administrative Hearings in Dallas (where DWI ALR hearings are held). EVE was not nearby. I often worry about the militarization of our police forces. I'm glad to see DPD going the complete opposite direction with the Lt. Jim Dangle inspired police segway.

The police pull you over and find a suspicious white powder in your car. You swear this powder is for your athlete's foot. The police believe this powder is cocaine.

You are booked into jail. Bail is set at $25,000. The powder is sent to the DPS lab for further testing. You spend two weeks in jail but the DPS lab report comes back negative. Vindicated, you leave jail, short two weeks of life you will never get back.

Think that never happens? You must not practice criminal defense in Texas.

A similar situation with a client led me to file an open records request with DPS. I asked for documentation of cases in which "drugs" were sent to the DPS lab, tested, and found not to be drugs. Here is a copy of my email I sent to the DPS Public Information Office. (To learn how to send your own Open Records Request, click here).

Please accept this email as an open records requests.

Please send all documentation of DPS lab drug testing in which a substance turned out not to be a controlled substance (including marijuana). Please send all offense/arrest reports for these cases.

Please include Dallas and Kaufman County. Please limit this request to cases from 1/1/2006.

I would also like any training manual for testing controlled substances in the field, and DPS lab testing of substances.

I received 62 cases from Kaufman County, and over 500 from Dallas County!! I am still awaiting the police reports on these cases.

Questions I have-
Were these substances all field tested? Were those field tests positive?
Did the suspects tell the police these were not drugs? Did the cops ignore these pleas?
How long did these suspects sit in jail? What was bail set at?
How many of these tests were for marijuana? In Texas, the police can testify that a substance is marijuana. For other drugs, a lab test is required to confirm the substance is narcotics.

Finally, whenever Dallasnews.com does a story on the horrible conditions in the Dallas jail, there are always a few comments on the lines of "Don't break the law, and you won't go to jail!" I wonder what these people would say to the 500 people arrested in these cases?

I'll update as the story progresses.

Wylie PD sent officers to storm a local body shop. What was the threat to the Wylie Community? A contraband rooster.

Having a rooster is apparently illegal in Wylie. I guess the only to handle such a threat is to send the police in with a warrant. What did the officers find upon entering the body shop? Nothing. The rooster had already been removed.

From the Star Telegram-

Sheriff's deputies early Friday arrested 15 people and seized 300 "eight-liner" gaming machines in what they say is their largest raid ever on illegal gambling sites in Tarrant County.

Readers of this blog know my disdain for victimless crime enforcement. If consenting adults want to place bets there is no reason to send the police in. What exactly was the Tarrant County Sheriff keeping us safe from? Apparently, the threat of winning cash from a slot machine.

"All five of these locations are violating the law by paying cash out to their customers as they win playing these slot machines," Chief Simonds said. "They may claim ignorance of the law but they know exactly what they're doing.

I don't know how Tarrant county residents slept at night knowing that individuals were being paid cash for winning bets. I guess these eight liner payouts are somehow much more dangerous than the hundreds of lottery ticket/scratch off payouts that happen every day in Tarrant County.

Texas law doesn't ban gambling, it just bans gambling that isn't run by the State (horse/dog tracks aside). The State hypocritically promotes lottery sales while arresting eight liner patrons.

When gambling is legalized Texans won't be forced to wager in illegal eight liner parlors (or Shreveport). Until then, law enforcement is working hard to protect our State's gambling monopoly.

My wife and I drove from Ennis to Dallas today. Again, I was embarrassed by the proliferation of cops manning their radar guns on I-45..

Speed traps are among the lowest forms of law enforcement (TABC would also challenge for that title). I saw cops hiding under bridges, cops hiding on the access road, and cops pulling over fellow drivers (to meet their quota).

I have two problems with this speed trap nonsense. First, the speed limit on I-45 is 60 miles per hour. This is a six lane interstate highway without heavy traffic. The speed limit should be at least 70. After all, motorists want to get through Wilmer as quickly as possible. The 60 mph speed limit has no connection with safety, or with reality (I was going around sixty and being passed by almost every car).

Second, these speed traps are literally highway robbery. Instead of taxing their own citizens to fill the coffers cities like Wilmer spread the misery to out of town motorists. This is not criminal justice, it is traffic taxation.

It's time to raise the speed limit of I-45 and let these cops do something useful with their time.

La agregación de estos casos produce que alguien en general aconseje sobre la detención y búsqueda.

Primero, la policia le intentara y trampeara a menudo en la concesion de permisso para buscar su coche. Usted NUNCA debe de dejar la policia buscar su coche.

Por que? La policia puedo ser torcido, sus amigos pueden ser consumidores de medicinas{drogas}, y el oficial ha decidido ya que usted es un criminal.

Tenga cuidado con las siguentes lineas tipicas que la policia utiliza para poder conseguir su consentimiento de buscar.

El poli-"Usted no carga algunas armas, meth, granadas de mano, o cadaveres en su coche, no?"
Usted- "No."

El poli-"Entonces usted no se opone si busco su coche?"
Usted-"Realmente si me opongo. Ahora, estoy libre de ir?"

Ve la trampa. El policia esta implicando que solamente una persona que esconde algo negaria el persmiso de buscar. Él quiere que usted diga "No, no me opongo" antes de que usted tenga una posibilidad para pensar en ello. "En este caso la respuesta correcta es "Sí, me opongo realmente".

La policia raramente pide el permiso de buscar en una manera honrada. Porque? Ellos a menudo entran por la puerta de atrás por su petición de búsqueda. Por qué? Ellos quieren conseguir su consentimiento, sin informarle de su derecho de negarse.

Por qué quiere la policía buscar su coche? No porque les gusta usted, o "sólo{justo} para comprobar su vehículo" o para dejarlo ir. La policía sólo pide el consentimiento de buscar porque ellos piensan que usted es un criminal y ellos no tienen la causa probable de buscar.

La afirmación de sus derechos a menudo hará la policía enojarse. Aquí está
una respuesta típica.

Usted - "No quiero que usted busque mi coche."
El polis- "Bien, si usted no tiene nada para esconderse por qué no puedo buscar?"
Usted - "Soy libre de ir?"
El polis- "Si usted no me deja buscar voy a sacar el perro de medicina {droga}!"
Usted - "Soy libre{gratis} de marcharme?"

En aquel punto el policia es dejado con una decisión en si hay que llamar realmente la unidad K9, o dejarle ir. No se siénta mal para él oficial.. Él es el que quién causó este problema. Usted todavía puede rechazar la busqueda, aun si el oficial se enoja, o le amenaza.

El comienzo de pregunatar a la policia si usted es libre de ir es oidio para la policia pero es importante. Durante una parada de tráfico la policía sólo debería investigar violaciones de tráfico. Ellos se informarán de la violación, comprobar su licencia de conducir y el seguro del coche, y comprobar autorizaciones de arresto. Si al principio la policía pregunta sobre medicinas{drogas}, es porque ellos piensan que usted los tiene.

Finalmente, nunca intente y pare a un oficial de la busqueda. Esto es siempre una mala idea. Incluso si usted piensa que él actúa ilegalmente, al lado del camino no es el lugar para corregir el comportamiento de oficial malo.

The local media is in a tizzy over the arrest of Officer Alph Coleman.

Allegedly, Officer Coleman helped coordinate a robbery at a Sam's Club. Officer Coleman was working security at the Sam's when it was robbed. There is some pretty compelling evidence against Officer Coleman. From DMN-

Police say the getaway driver was behind the wheel of Officer Coleman’s civilian car. They also obtained cell phone records showing that Officer Coleman called the driver several times just before the gunman entered the store.

So what does Officer Coleman do when the police want to question him? He shut up. Maybe Alph read Houston Defense Lawyer Mark Bennett's Million Dollar legal advise. From DMN-

When investigators spoke to him Tuesday, he refused to answer questions about the June 27 robbery of the Sam’s Club in the 2900 block of West Wheatland Road.

Even the police know not to talk to the police.

I filed an open records request for documents pertaining to the Cherry Pit raid. I received the affidavit used to search the premises and the investigation report.

Cherry Pit Search Warrant Affidavit and Return

Cherry Pit Investigation Report

I don't have time to break these down yet. Let me know your thoughts.

Few things on the highway are as ubiquitous as a cop hiding from view, armed with a radar gun. As long as local governments have needed tax revenue, radar guns have been used to fine speeders.

How exactly does a radar gun work? Can this information help beat your ticket?
See for yourself. Here is a copy of the Radar Operations Manual from the Texas Department of Public Safety. Happy reading.

Table of Contents/ Chapter 1- Introduction

Chapter 2 Basic Principles of Radar Speed Measurement

Chapter 3 Legal Considerations

Chapter 4 Additional Considerations

Annexes (Graphs etc)

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. 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?
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 Constitution-

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.

I'm on a suppression win streak. My last two suppression motions in marijuana cases have been granted. Like any other criminal defense attorney I have had more than a few motions to suppress denied. As a NORML legal committee member these 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 consent to a police search of 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. Why? They want to get your consent, without informing you of your right to refuse.

Why do the police want to search your car? Not because they like you, or "just to check your vehicle" so they can let you go. The police only ask for consent to search because they think you are a criminal and they don't have probable cause to search.

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. You can still refuse to search, even if the officer is angry, or threatens you.

Start 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/insurance, and check for warrants. If the police start asking about drugs, it is because they think you have them.

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.

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?

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

-Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 2.131

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

The sorry tale of Dallas Police Sergeant Walter Clifton came to an end yesterday.

Sgt. Clifton was involved in the phony tickets scandal in Dallas. Here is a summary. Sgt Clifton and his officers would write many tickets to homeless or transient defendants. These defendants sometimes missed their court appearances. Allegedly, Dallas judges would not issue arrest warrants when these defendants failed to appear.

Sgt. Clifton sought to guarantee the incarceration of the destitute and came up with a plan. He instructed his officers to write put phony occupations on the ticket. That way the judge would issue an arrest warrant and these homeless defendants could be incarcerated. Besides being morally reprehensible writing false tickets is illegal in Texas.

From the Texas Penal Code- § 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD. (a) A person commits an offense if he: (1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record; (2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record; ...(5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity; or

Since Sgt. Clifton intended to have these defendants arrested this should have been a state jail felony offense. Unfortunately, criminal laws rarely apply to those in law enforcement.

What punishment did Sgt. Clifton receive?

Criminal charges? No.
Loss of job? No.
Suspension from job? No.
Documented Counseling? Yes!!!

Dallas Assistant City Manager/Bureaucratic Stooge Jill Jordan reduced Sgt. Walter Clifton’s work suspension to a "documented counseling." Apparently Ms. Jordan thinks illegal arrests of the homeless is no big deal.

Still think the government is looking out for your freedom? There is an inverse relationship between constitutional protections and criminal police conduct. The more we gut our freedom and liberty, the more Sgt. Cliftons we get. People often view Constitutional protections as "technicalities" that criminals use to escape justice. The truth is that without liberty, freedom, and Constitutional protections our government becomes a criminal enterprise in which there can be no justice.

Dallas Morning News has yet another story on the proliferation of DWI blood warrants. This time the Dallas Police are joining the bandwagon of cities who have chosen to circumvent the law and violate your right to refuse blood testing.

What about the right to counsel? Will these DWI suspects have the right to consult an attorney before the Dallas Police forcefully remove their blood?

Texas Bill of Rights
From your Texas Constitution- Article 1 Section 10.

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right of being heard by counsel,

DWI Blood Draws
Does Article I Section apply to DWI suspects? After all, the Dallas police want to detain you, interrogate you, ask you to perform useless physical challenges, arrest you, ask for a breath sample, and finally hold you down and forcefully extract your blood. That sounds like a good time for a defense attorney to intervene.

Unfortunately, the right to counsel for DWI suspects was repealed long ago. Here is a summary of the sorry state of RTC law from the Texas prosecutor's DWI manual, DWI Prosecution and Investigation by TDCAA.

An officer does not have to give Miranda warnings to a suspect before asking for a breath sample. A suspect does not have the right to counsel before deciding whether to give a sample. An invocation of the suspect's right to an attorney will not later exclude evidence of a refusal to take a breath test.

How was the right to counsel repealed? Conservative Judicial Activism. (Due Process also applies to this discussion. However, that is outside the scope of this post.)

McCambridge v. State
The Court of Criminal Appeals abated the right to counsel for DWI suspects in the early 1990s. A string of DWI cases allowed COCA to rewrite the Texas Constitution in order to save DWI convictions. A good example is McCambridge v. State (778 S.W. 2d 70).

In McCambridge the defendant was found guilty of DWI. On appeal McCambridge argued that he should have had the right to speak with an attorney before deciding whether or not to give a breath sample.

How would COCA save this DWI conviction that clearly violates the Texas Bill of Rights?

Rights under Article 1 Section 10 only apply during a "criminal prosecutions." COCA held that DWI suspects are not being prosecuted. Ergo, they have no rights.

Only in a DWI case would such tortured logic be allowed. COCA won't even stoop this low to save a drug case. For example, if the police had a warrant to search your house for drugs they could not force you to show them where the drugs are. If you asked for an attorney while they were searched they would not continue to question you.

The Dissenting opinion sums up the McCambridge decision well.

Today... a lackluster majority of this Court declines to hold that under Art. I, § 10, of the Texas Constitution, the "Rights of the Accused in Criminal Prosecutions" clause, 1 an individual lawfully arrested for allegedly committing the offense of driving while intoxicated has the right to the assistance of counsel from that point forward; they opt instead to hold that such a person has the right to the assistance of counsel only after formal criminal charges have been filed, which act apparently lies in the discretion of the police as to just when that must occur.

For unknown reasons, a person lawfully arrested in Texas for driving while intoxicated is to be treated differently from a person who has been lawfully arrested for committing some other criminal wrong.

DWI = Not A Criminal Prosecution?
This arbitrary decision by COCA has little basis in law enforcement reality. Any assistant DA or criminal defense lawyer can attest that every DWI arrest is indeed a criminal prosecution. Every facet of law enforcement works in concert to arrest and convict dwi suspects. The police work under the direction of prosecutors, who then conspire with cooperative judges, who then sign "fill in the blank" search warrants. Under any definition (besides COCA's) that is clearly a criminal prosecution. But don't take my word for it. From DMN-

Deputy Chief Tom Lawrence said the effort is "the next step in what we are ultimately trying to achieve when we make an arrest for driving while intoxicated. That is the successful prosecution of these cases."

Until yesterday I had never viewed any of A&E's Dallas SWAT reality show. Last night I caught about 15 minutes of one episode. This 1/4 hour of television showed much of what is wrong with law enforcement. Here is what went down on Dallas SWAT.

Home Invasion Search
The SWAT team was preparing to arrest a woman on an outstanding drug warrant. The house was known to have children inside. SWAT members formulated a plan to rip the door off the house and storm the residence.

A&E showed only a few minutes of home invasion raid preparation. SWAT members discuss how best to rip the door off, where Alpha/Brave/Charlie team should be, and what to do when they find the kids. No one proposes that maybe, just maybe, ripping the door off house full of children and sending a militarized police force is not the best idea.

Most people I know eventually leave their residence. Why not just wait for this suspect to leave then arrest her? This wait and arrest approach is not as ecxiting as the Rainbow Six approach. But why create a dangerous situation where none exists? Yet another example of the shift from Peace Officers to Law Enforcement. It appears that having a SWAT team obligates SWAT home invasion raids.

A Better Use for SWAT
I also caught an appropriate use of the Dallas SWAT team. A man was in his apartment and threatening to kill himself. He had a gun and may have shot at officers (I missed the beginning). The police used tear gas, and sent in a team to apprehend a disturbed and violent man. Stopping those who pose an immediate threat to the public is a much better strategy than creating threats by storming houses.

Johnny Baker- Cosmic Irony Strikes Back
Finally, the show also contained a segment of Officer Johnny Baker and his love of motorcycle riding. Officer Baker spoke about how much he enjoyed the rush of dangerous SWAT work.

What escaped Officer Baker at that moment was the cosmic irony of his alleged enjoyment of commercial sex services.
Officer Baker was later fired. Consensual crime enforcement giveth Officer Baker a job, consensual crime enforcement taketh away.

Today's DMN has a shocking story. Dallas Auto Theft Task Force agents knew that one of their snitches was going to rob a tractor trailer with $1m in cigarettes. The police, not wanting to ruin their important investigation, told no one.

This robbery took place in Waxahachie, in Ellis County. From DMN-

When several men broke into a Waxahachie truck terminal last October, tied up a security guard at gun point and crashed a semi-trailer loaded with $1 million in cigarettes through the front gate, they didn’t know one of them was a snitch for the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department.

A sheriff’s detective who was in contact with the informant that night said he didn’t know the crime would turn into an armed robbery. But the informant was surprised to be arrested months later, saying the detective knew for weeks what he was planning.

The Sheriff’s Department launched an internal investigation of its auto theft task force after local police officers complained that the detective hid key information from them to protect his informant.

That investigation cleared task force officers of any wrongdoing..

Task force detectives knew days in advance that the truck heist was going down at the Celadon trucking terminal in Waxahachie. They did not intervene and, in fact, weren’t even at the scene.

The investigation cleared task force officers of any wrongdoing. Why am I not suprised?

What would motivate law enforcement to allow crime? Bureaucrats are predictabty self interested actors. Government always acts to serve its own interest, not those of the public. This Auto Task Force wanted to bust a car theft ring, not prevent armed robberies.

Snitches are a disgusting reality of law enforcement. They pollute the integrity of the system. Snitches are most prevelant in drug cases. Someday Texas will ban police collusion with criminals. Until then, don't count on the Dallas Sheriff to protect you from their snitches.
Make sure a read the whole article for a great quote by
Grit's own Scott Henson. It's good to see that Mr. Henson is recognized as the expert on Texas snitches. Way to go Scott!

Finally, thanks to Terrence who pointed out this was a trailer robbery, not an armored car heist. I got my google reader stories mixed up. Sorry for any confusion.

I live in Ennis and frequently take Interstate 45 North to Dallas. There is never less than 2 police cars hiding between State Highway 34 and Interstate 20 looking for speeders. Most often these cops lurk on bridges and on ramps hiding from unsuspecting motorists.

On I-45 The speed limit goes from 65 to 60 in various spots. However, if you travel less than 70 you will be frequently passed by traffic. It is obvious that the Speed Limit on I-45 has no basis in promoting safety or in driver reality. There is nothing dangerous about driving 75 on I-45. Not that I would ever intentionally break our State's divinely inspired traffic laws.

I blogged earlier that I wanted to use open records to highlight the I-45 speed trap and the shameless money grab by local municipalities. I often see Garrett, Palmer, and/or Ferris police on I-45.

However, I lacked the time and energy to handle more open records work. Luckily, the Ellis County Observer did all the open records work for me.

Here is the Ferris Speed Trap by the numbers.
Ferris Texas- Population 2,157
Ferris Municipal Court Revenues per month 2008- $60,333
Citations Per Month 2008- 408.

A town of 2,100 generates $60k a month by writing 400 tickets a month. In Texas ticket quotas are supposed to be illegal. However, any government agency (including police) that can generate revenue will be exploited. It's much easier for politicians to raise money through traffic tickets rather than by taxing residents. Instead of getting visitors, business, or residents to come to Ferris they have chosen to use the power of government to steal money from drivers.

RateMyCop.com lets citizens rate and review police officers. Some Texas prosecutors don't like the idea. I think it's great. Police have a troubled history of policiing themselves. More information helps everyone. RMC could prevent future Tulias from happening.

Here is an interview with founder Gino Sesto.

1. Name/Background/Resume
Gino Sesto. 37yrs old, living in Culver City, CA. 15+ year Advertising background.

2. How did RMC get started?
Having a dinner with a good friend 7 or 8 months ago, and the topic turned to traffic tickets. We spoke about our experiences for at least a half hour. It dawned on me the next day that there is a website here. People all have experiences with officers, both good and bad. The best part is they remember them like it happened just yesterday. After doing some research and realizing I could get lists of names from the departments themselves we decided to make the site. We mailed over 1,000 requests to departments around the country and received over 500 back. I learned that over 40,000,000 traffic tickets are given out every year. On each traffic ticket there is a line for the officer to fill out. His/Her name and id number. Aha! That’s what we need. People keep those tickets for at least 6 months, so the data is there, and certainly the users are there. Everyone has an opinion on those tickets, and they usually tell all their immediate friends about the ticket.

3. Would RMC be possible without open records laws?
Absolutely, the open record laws only allowed us to seed the “kitty”. Without the 140k names that we have now, the press wouldn’t have bothered with us, but eventually the users would have grown the database to that point. Just 5 days ago we launched the ability for users to add to our database, and we have already had over 400 names submitted. Getting the names from the police departments only got the website to grow faster than it would have without the names

Continue reading "RateMyCop.com Interview- Gino Sesto" »

Texas trains DWI officers with the NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Student Testing Manual. The NHTSA SFST Manual is the national standard for DWI enforcement. Every DWI defense lawyer should own a copy.

The manual includes, inter alia, training on how an officer should testify in court. DWI officers are professional witnesses, trained and paid to speak in court. Some of the manual's tips are pretty mundane; read the police report beforehand, listen carefully, take your time, speak clearly. Not too exiting.

Training Officers To Be Ignorant
Good propaganda demands blind adherence to principle. In our case officers are taught to never question "the studies" or the breath test machine.

Here is how the manual instructs officers to answer questions about the breath test machine, the Intoxilyzer 5000.

From the manual

You are not required to know, and in fact know nothing, about the Intoxilyzer 5000, or your jurisdiction breath test instrument, its internal workings or anything other than how to operate it and take a breath sample from a defendant.... Never testify to its internal workings, or the defense attorney will discredit you and make you out to be a "thinks-he-knows-it-all who really knows nothing

A typical breath test room contains the officer and the DWI suspect. That means NO ONE in the breath machine room knows how the Intoxilyzer works!! Another reason why you should have the right to counsel before bac testing.

What is worse in the encouragement of officers to not learn anything about the breath machine. What other profession would encourage ignorance? What is NHTSA afraid of? Maybe that the officers would read this, or this, or this.

Here is some more gold on NHTSA validation studies.

Be sure the officer is aware that NHTSA has done validation studies, and the SFST is considered very useful in determining whether or not is driving while intoxicated. The officer doesn't need to know the number, or care, because in this case, this defendant was impaired.

First of all, these studies have not been validated. Here is a great breakdown of the "studies" that "validate" the garbage SFST science.

For detecting innnocent drivers SFST's score as low as 7%! We certainly wouldn't officers to know that would we? They might lose the moral certainty required for subjective mass arrests. Officers shouldn't take time to learn about what they are doing. After all in your case, you are impaired.

Dallas Police teamed up with federal ICE agents to raid Latino nightclubs over the weekend. 50 illegal immigrants were arrested. It is unclear if any had a record. 4 guns were recovered.

What were these illegal immigrants doing that posed such a threat to Dallasites? Working... as security guards... at nightclubs. Hit the xeno panic alarm!! Mexicans are coming to take our bouncer jobs!! Mr. Watkins proudly sums up the operation with this quote-

"Hopefully, this operation will help us send a message that we will not tolerate the falsification of documents for undocumented aliens under the guise of providing security," Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins said.

Of all the messages government tries to send that has to be one of the most confusing. The real message seems to be even "progressive" politicians will seek PR stunt victories over the politically powerless.

Craig, here is a message from Wikipedia. Dallas ranks number 1 for violent crime among large US cities. I doubt that illegal immigrant bouncer raids are going to reverse that trend.

A lot of good things have come out of the Craig Watkins administration. From innocence projects to smart on crime tactics his tenure has a been a welcome change. Is it troubling to see Mr. Watkins on board with the current xeno hysteria.

On a side note- I believe that free trade is a plus for society. Goods and labor should not be artificially impeded by government. Immigration is only a problem because our federal government created an artificial barrier. The fear of illegal immigration is great for ratings and votes. However, we betray our own country's heritage when we deny opportunity and freedom to immigrants.

Drug dog expert Steven Nicely helped to defeat a possession case in Nebraska. Based on Nicely's testimony the court found a drug dog to not be reliable. Steven was kind enough to grant me an interview.

1. Tell us about the case.
Case involved a dog team from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office Ne, in which approximately 10 pounds of cocaine was seized. The vehicle was stopped because the officer/dog handler believed some defect with its temporary plate. Handler spent over 30 minutes interviewing the driver and passenger before deploying the dog. This was not necessary the entire incident could have been complete in less than 10 minutes after contact with the driver.

2. What did you notice about the dog/handler behavior?
When the dog completed one pass around the vehicle the handler by excessive tapping directed the dog’s attention to the right rear area of the van the dog sniffed intently and tried to walk away. The handler immediately pulled the dog back and forced it to again sniff the area; the dog sniffed again and tried to leave. The dog is pulled back a third time sniffed and tried to leave the handler put his knee against the vehicle preventing the dog from leaving, pulled up on the leash and caused the dog to sit. The handler said the dog had responded revealing the presence of drugs.

3. Were these training or performance problems?
Both, training affect performance directly. The handler performed the way he was trained. Until recently, trainers for departments were never seriously challenged.

4. Can officers make drug dogs falsely indicate the presence of narcotics?
Yes, it can be done intentionally and unintentionally. Look up Clever Hans.

5. How can you tell the difference between a valid indication, and an officer induced indication of narcotics?
In this case it was very obvious, but in most cases it is very difficult. One must be aware of elements that occur before the search took place. A key element is comparing times when it can be confirmed the handler hand information prior to the search that increased suspicion and compare that with search/response/actual find ratio. Do not include claims of residual, the officer smelled drugs, or a roadside confession they cannot be confirmed. Other things to consider is the entire picture of the team’s performance break it down into times the dog was required to provided PC for a search and compare search/response/actual find ratios. The unconscious cues are the most difficult convince the judge they occurred. A ground work about “Clever Hans” should be laid to educate the judge on subconscious we humans can barely see if see at all. Dogs are predominately body language communicators, and lean to read the handler’s body language which can also include leash handling, breathing, and eye contact just to name a few.

6. Finally, what do criminal defense lawyers need to know when evaluating a drug dog performance?
Is the dog trained and tested in such a fashion that one would reasonably believe the dog will only reveal the presence or absences of drugs, a contraband item. (see US V PLACE)

The Dallas Police Ticket Scandal finally reached a conclusion with the firing of three officers and the suspension of one. The officers wrote false information on tickets. These tickets turned into warrants which led to the arrest of innocent defendants.

What was the police officer's defense? Those falsely arrested were poor.

"None of these charges merit termination at all,'' {Attorney] David Schiller said. "These are excellent officers who were out there every day working with the lowest common denominator ... in an area that needed enforcement."

My question- Why are no criminal charges being pursued? If we know the police filed false government documents they should be prosecuted. Craig Watkins could do a lot worse than spend time prosecuting corrupt police.

This is why we need the right to privacy, the right to not be stopped without cause, or the right to not be arrested on Class C misdemeanors- because without freedom we have no protection against government criminals.

The Dallas Observer has a good story on the success of private security cameras installed in an East Dallas neighborhood. Richland Park estates has a voluntary neighborhood watch program that pays for the maintenance of a video monitoring system. This program has reduced crime dramatically.

These residents already send thousands of dollars in taxes to the Dallas police each year. Why are private security cameras necessary?

Opportunity Costs are really real
I keep saying that opportunity costs are real. Every drug arrest, poker raid, speed trap etc- keeps the police from preventing real crime. If these East Dallas residents could choose law enforcement priorities they would probably ask for more home invasion robbery prevention, and less pot and poker arrests.

State vs. Private Crime Prevention
This is a classic case of an unresponsive government agency failing to meet the needs of the citizenry. Crime prevention is a service. The Dallas Police are the government providers of crime prevention. DPD has their own priorities- fighting the drug war, writing tickets, poker prevention etc. This agenda is formed through the political process. Those without political power can not influence how the police disperse law enforcement resources. Political minority and individual demands for law enforcement are ignored. Ergo, East Dallas residents turn to the market to solve their problems.

What happens when the citizens gain the political power to manipulate the police agenda? In cities like Seattle, Portland, Oakland, and Denver the voters made marijuana arrests the "lowest law enforcement priority."

Dallas citizens needs a more responsive police department. Neighborhoods should be free to choose how their tax dollars are spent. Until then, we have citizens paying twice for crime prevention.

A quick recap- Tray Boswell was arrested by the Plano Police for Driving While Intoxicated. Tray's Attorney, Don Tittle, overcame Texas' incredibly limited discovery laws to find out that the arresting officers had been in contact with Tray's ex wife before, during, and after the arrest of Mr. Boswell.

Here is the Tray Boswell DWI Case Report. Sadly, it looks like all other police reports. I wonder how many of these phony DWI cases are never detected?

Pre Text Stops
Pre Text stops in Texas are legal. What is a pre text stop? If a cops wants to search or arrest you, but can not get a warrant, she is allowed to follow you while you drive until you commit any traffic violation. Then the officer may search, arrest, etc.

No other benign act does more to destory your rights than driving. In Texas, you can be arrested for almost any class C misdemeanor (even though class C misdemeanor do NOT allow incarceration as a punishment). Tray was pulled over for not having a front license plate.

What the camera doesn't see
Notice the police alleged the front license plate was missing. Why? Probably because you can't see it on the video. Ergo, for Tray to suppress this stop you would have a situation where the police say one thing, Tray says another, and the judge decides. Guess how that turns out?

HGN
Tray "failed" the HGN. The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus is a great tool for corrupt officers.Why? Because the state can argue it is "science" and because the jurors can not see the suspect's eyes on video.

Other Allegations
Slurred Speech, Odor of an Alcoholic Beverage, Swaying, Blood Shot eyes, thick tounged speech. These are in the vast majority of DWI offense reports. None of them are viewable on camera.

Watching Cops can be a good exercise for criminal defense attorneys. Search and seizure, confessions, probable cause all come in to play. I was channel surfing and caught a gun arrest.

Here is what happened- 3 passengers in a car. 2 males, and one female. I didn't quit catch where everyone was sitting. The police find a gun in the glove box. I don't remember the jurisdiction, however it was clear that there was no 2nd amendment right to carry in your car. The police are looking to pin this gun on somebody and make an arrest.

Male 1- Asks for an attorney. The police say "he asked for a lawyer, he isn't cooperating."
Male 2- Talks to the police. M2 states he doesn't know anything about a gun, he has no idea whose car it is, or who these people are.
Female- Talks to the police. Female states that she is M2's girlfriend. Female also states that the gun belongs to M1. F tells the police that M1 pulled the gun out when they were pulled over, and put it in the glove box.

The police know have three suspects. M1 asked for an attorney and hasn't said anything. M2 is either lying, or stupid. Female is snitching but her credibility is hampered by her relationship with M2.

Who do the police arrest? The suspect who "isn't cooperating"- M1. That's right, even though M2 lied, he is obviously more credible than someone who would ask for an attorney. They don't even consider Female a suspect, after all, she snitched.

The result- M2 and Female are let go. M1 (who still hasn't said a word) is arrested on a gun charge.

Lessons- Cops trust snitches. Cops think you are a criminal if you "don't cooperate." And the prisoner's dillema is real (game theory exists).

What can "I" get? These are tax dollars. This officer should be asking what can "we" get. Consensual crime enforcement makes us all less safe.

Opportunity costs are real. Officers who are getting lap dances are not investigating robberies, murders etc.

§ 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.

This is part of the "implied consent" chapter of the Texas Trasnportation Code. Unless you are in a car accident with serious injuries (724.012b) this Prohibition on Taking Specimen applies. Notice how their is now exception for fill in the blank search warrants signed by "cooperative judges."

Now, pretend you are on the Court of Criminal Appeals. Here are the facts.

A defendant has been arrested for DWI and refused to give a blood sample. There has been no injury accident. Officer Friendly gets a warrant and forcibly removes defendant's blood. Defendants argues that this search violates 724.013 and the 4th Amendment and should be suppressed.

COCA Ruling- To dissalow these forced blood draws "results in giving DWI suspects more protection than other criminal suspects---an absurd result."

That sentence says a lot about COCA, the 4th Amendment and criminal justice in Texas. COCA judges find it absurd to give DWI suspects more protection even if the law is clear and unambiguous. Absurd- their word, not mine.

Judicial Activism Cuts Both Ways
Conservatives often decry "judicial activism" for issues like gay marriage.Yet this police state judicial activism is ignored by the same conservative pundits.

COCA ignored the plain meaning of the statute. The legislature could have put in an exception in the law for warrants, and didn't. So, an appellate court made new law and ignored the "strict constructionism" so often praised in conservative circles.

The City of Austin finally turned over their records on the Austin PD/Austin Energy Warrantless surveillance program. To recap, Austin PD has a deal with Austin that gives Austin PD access to customer electricity usage information. I filed an open records request for information on the program. Austin PD fought the request by asking for an AG opinion. The AG ruled for disclosure. Today I received the materials from the City of Austin Law Department.

What I Received
I received a list of email addresses for city employees (I'm not really sure why), the Austin Police's customer service agreement with Austin Energy (to provide electricity, not customer info), and a copy of the Austin PD Organized Crime Division Operation Procedure Manual.

The Procedure Manual is eight pages long. The city redacted all but two sentences. The still sent me 8 pages though, with a nice big "redacted- not responsive" stamped on each page to highlight their power of non disclosure.

The Two Sentences
Here is what the City of Austin fought to keep secret. Here is the information that would "endanger officer safety" if released. Drum roll..........................

"Assigned Personnel will use investigative techniques to include.....
F. Check utilities at reported location."

Tax Dollars At Work?
That's it. Austin PD, though the City of Austin Law Department, wasted tax dollars to fight the release of those two sentences. The City told the Attorney General that releasing those two sentences would "endanger officer safety." Is anyone else insulted by such fraudulent arguments? The City of Austin's Law Department is making a mockery of open records and law enforcement such sorry arguments.

No Program Exists
Sometimes what you don't find in an open records request is as important as what you do find. In this Austin PD has no program for this warrantless surveillance. Their is no oversight, no reporting of searches, no suspicion needed to search, nothing. Austin PD has unfettered access to your personal information with no policy as to how, when, or why the information can be accessed.

If an officer is getting divorced and wants to check his spouse's utility bill then he can. Want to see if you neighbor's house is energy efficient? Call Austin PD. Law enforcement discretion rarely goes without abuse, even seemingly benign powers like utility bill searches.

DWI is a danger to liberty because Officers have unlimited discretion to subjectively decide you are "intoxicated." Combined with SFST junk science and you have a recipe for injustice.

What could make that situation even worse for the citizens of Texas? DWI arrest quotas. Austin DPS troopers operating under just such a system. These officers received memos stating that they had to make a minimum number of DWI arrests annualy.

What's wrong with quotas? Cops chasing a number of arrests, and given wide discretion to interpret "intoxication" will arrest the innocent and spin the evidence.

I shudder to think how many innocent drivers were arrested so DPS troopers could meet their quota. I guarantee these innocent drivers all had "bloodshot and glassy eyes, slurred speech, and the odor of an alcoholic beverage" and that they all "failed" the HGN.

Texas is supposed to have laws against law enforcement quotas. However, I'm sure no one involved in this scandal will face any charges.

Austin Energy Warrantless Surveillance To recap- Austin Police and Austin Energy have an agreement that allows for warrantless surveillance of consumer electricity bills. Austin PD uses this information to search for marijuana growing operations sans warrant.

Request
I filed an open records request with Austin PD and asked for internal policies, inter alia. I received this information, however other records were not disclosed. Austin PD sought an.. wait for it... Attorney General Opinion to avoid disclosure. ACLU Texas also filed a request for the same information.

Labels: austin energy austin police, open records

I recently filed an open records request with the city of Dallas. I asked for "information on how often, if ever, the Dallas SWAT team or Dallas Police, has entered the wrong house while serving a warrant." I asked for all incidents since 2002.

First, a recap- I had a DWI trial in Collin County. The arrest was made by the Wylie PD. I subpoenaed the arresting officers to bring any information on local DWI procedures to trial

NHTSA has developed the standard DWI testing and arrest procedures. I was looking for any additional training or procedures used or developed by the Wylie PD. I filed an open records request before trial asking for the same information. By the day of trial I had not received a response to my open records request.

Day of trial- I put both officers on the stand to testify as to the existence of local DWI procedures. The two officers stated no such records exists. At that point I believed there was no point in waiting on the open records request so the trial went on.

Trial Ends- Finding of guilt by the jury. After trial I receive my open records response. Wylie PD, by and through their attorney, states that not only does Wylie have local DWI procedures, they are somehow confidential and not subject to open records disclosure. Wylie PD sought an Attorney General Opinion to deny access to the records.

Finally- I received the Attorney General Opinion which states that all the records I requested must be released. I look forward to finding out what was so important about Wylie DWI procedures as to exclude from the public, and exactly what the two officer's testified to during trial.

For your viewing pleasure, here is the AG opinion. FYI- The CD labeled "Hooker" is not what you think. It is the arresting officer's name.

Labels: DWI, open records

The Fort Worth Police, along with the Tarrant County District Attorney have brought the Metroplex to a new low for civil liberties.

For the MADD/fascism crowd here is your hero,

The idea for the 'no refusal' holiday actually came from senior prosecutor Lloyd Whelchel of the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office. Whelchel recently attended a training seminar and reminded officials that authorities in El Paso and Harris County had similar programs in place.

It is embarrassing that tax dollars are spent sending prosecutors on vacation to learn how to further erode civil liberties. Lloyd's junket resulted in this new low for liberty in Texas.

At least 18 motorists suspected of driving while intoxicated were arrested Monday night and Tuesday morning during the Fort Worth Police Department's "No Refusal" DWI campaign. Of that number, 10 drivers refused to provide a breath specimen, prompting police to obtain a search warrant and draw their blood to determine whether their blood-alcohol levels were above the legal limit of 0.08. At least one had to be restrained while his blood was taken, said Lt. Dean Sullivan, a police spokesman.

Texas is now forcibly restraining citizens to draw their blood. Citizens who are merely under suspicion of a crime and have injured no one. No law in Texas allows for these blood draws.

How did we get here? Judicial activism, creative prosecutors, and rubber stamp magistrates.

Texas Law- Implied Consent
Texas law is clear, barring an accident involving death or serious bodily injury, you can refuse to give a blood/breath specimen.

Texas has a popular and misguided law- implied consent. The idea being that you can lose your license if you did not give a breath sample upon request. The law is clear that driver's have a right to refuse a sample.

The legislature then created a procedure that allowed for blood draws in for accidents resulting in seriously bodily injury. So if you were suspected of DWI that resulted in death or serious injury the police could draw blood. Barring that, you could still refuse to give a sample.

Prosecutors Work Around The Law
Mr. Welchel and his ilk could have lobbied the legislature for an expansion of the implied consent law. Instead, prosecutors have decided to make an Orwellian farce out of the criminal justice system and rely on a pro State appellate court for some needed judicial activism.

The idea behind this tragedy is that the blood in your body is evidence. The State merely needs a warrant to get this "evidence" for their DWI case.

To game the system prosecutors set up a friendly magistrate to sign the warrants on demand. Our pro-State Court of Appeals has declared this practice constitutional. Finally, this idea spreads at tax payer funded prosecutor conventions.

This is how freedom dies, with creative prosecutors gaming the system and a complacent Court of Appeals finding more exceptions to the Bill of Rights. The State of Texas has no right to invade the bodies of driver's who have injured no one. I am embarassed that we are taking forced blood draws from suspects who are deprived not only of counsel, but of liberty.

A great Drey Carey video for reason.tv. Dallas PD sent a SWAT team to bust up a VFW poker game. Absolutely shameful. Dallas SWAT continues to embarass the city with misguided poker raids.

Even the most casual observer of criminal justice can see the blatant hypocrisy of our State's poker ban. Gambling in Texas is legal only if the State runs it. The Texas Lottery sells poker scratch off tickets, inter alia. Try and run a private poker game and we send a SWAT team to shut you down. Private poker is illegal. Our State's gambling laws exist only to protect the State's gaming monopoly.

After uncovering Austin PD warrant less surveillance deal with Austin Energy, I filed an Open Records request with Dallas PD.

Sgt. Randy Hooper of the Open Records unit reports that no such agreements exists for either Dallas PD or the Dallas County Sheriff. Your electric bills are safe, for now.

I don't know if this is a victory for privacy or freedom, but at least it is not a loss.

DWI laws are dangerous because we give officers to much discretion too arrest. Law enforcement discretion combined with an erosion of constitutional protections leads to injustice every time.

Freedom, liberty, and the now defunct Bill of Rights used to protect us from corrupt law enforcement. Today, criminal defense lawyers are freedom's last hope.

This leads me to the story of Tray Boswell. Trey was arrested by Plano PD for DWI. The Plano Star Courier reports that during Boswell’s DWI trial, his criminal attorney Phillip, requested the cell phone records from Sarah Boswell, Trey's wife. Trey and Sarah were going through a divorce. Child custody was an issue.

Phone records indicated that numerous phone calls were made between Sarah Boswell and the arresting officers Ron Michael Scott Copeland and Jon. The calls were initiated by both parties. Kress, Copeland and Britton claimed they had never met Sarah Boswell .

Court records state Copeland detained Boswell without probable cause and issued two traffic citations. Phone records state on that day, at least four phone calls were made from Sarah Boswell to Copeland, despite their claim of never meeting before.

Tray filed a federal lawsuit after the DWI was dismissed. Don't believe criminal defense lawyers are freedom's last hope? Surely the government is policing the police and looking out for your rights? Here is a great quote from the Plano City Attorney, Diane Wetherbee.

Plano City Attorney Dianne Wetherbee said the officers conducted themselves
in an appropriate manner involving the incident.“We will vigorously defend
them,” While Diane is vigorously defending the officers, we should all be glad Phillip Linder was doing the same for Mr. Boswell.

DMN has a great piece on a new scandal for the DPD. It seems that 3 officers wrote tickets without probable cause, wrote multiple tickets for the same offense, had citizens sign "blank tickets" and filled in the infractions later, and issued "at large" tickets after citing an individual in person.

At large tickets are issued when the suspect is not available to cite in person. If the ticket is not mailed to the right address and the suspect never appears in court a warrant can be issued. It seems that defendants were jailed without any knowledge of a ticket being issued.

DMN speculates that these highly decorated officers were motivated to "write more tickets so that it appears they are working harder than their peers. Cpls. Stecker, Nelson and Schoelen have been prolific ticket writers.. "

How could this go on for so long?

1. The defendants are not very sophisticated, educated, or sympathetic. Many of these ticketswere to prostitutes and the homeless. If they end up in jail and complain it is their word against the police. Guess how that looks in court?

2. Class C misdemeanor defendants do not have the right to counsel; even if they are incarcerated for the tickets. These defendants had no one to challenge these tickets. I am guessing most plead out for "time served."

3. These officers had oustanding credentials. Quoting from the article- The three officers have all received positive reviews from supervisors. A sergeant wrote in a recent evaluation that Cpl. Schoelen "excels in the performance of his duties." Cpl. Stecker's sergeant called him a "resourceful, intelligent, poised professional police officer." Cpl. Nelson's supervisor described him as "dependable, responsible and one of the most knowledgeable officers" he knew.

We need to quit jailing defendants for tickets. It's repugnant to liberty. If we are going to throw people in jail for tickets they need the same legal protections as other defendants. Otherwise, we will have more situations like this.

The Collin County DA has chosen not to prosecute the Dateline NBC/Perverted Justice internet sex predator cases.

The DA claims to lack jurisdiction in some cases, and to lack evidence and cooperation from Perverted Justice in others. Perverted Justice is angry and states that "We've gone from questioning the competency of the Collin County prosecutor's office to questioning their sanity."

It is never politically popular to not charge pedophiles. It leads me to wonder if any other factors were at play? Bad blood between the CCDA and PJ? Or the CCDA and the Murphy PD? Residents of Murphy were upset with the entire production taking place in their neighborhood. Other residents are upset the cases are not being filed.

It is unfortunate that we may never know why these cases were not charged. Open records requests are limited in these situations.

Personally, I find it strange that Collin County would reject these cases, especially for "insufficient evidence." Criminal Defense lawyers know that it is impossible to get a DWI dismissed in McKinney no matter how "insufficient" the evidence is.

There is a larger issue; how private market forces affect law enforcement.

PJ critics accuse them of not making complete transcripts public and hiding evidence of innocence (brady material), violating child pornography laws, and entrapment. Critics say NBC violates their own ethics rules and ignores complaints against PJ in the quest for ad revenue and higher ratings.

Law Enforcement and profit motives do not make the best combination. Asset forfeiture, private prison lobbying, and red light cameras show how justice can always be warped by a profit motive.

I love profit and I love free markets. I am a defense lawyer who makes money in the criminal justice industry. What is the difference?

I do not have the power of government. The government can arrest, incarcerate, seize, forfeit, and harrass in a way no private citizen can. The government has awesome power. Power that should be wielded without concern for TV ratings.

Who feels sorry for child sex predators? Nobody. Serious crimes require serious prosecutions with trained officers, not Stone Phillips.