Articles Posted in Drug Crimes

In a recent drug case coming out of a Texas court, the defendant appealed his conviction of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. In the defendant’s argument, he emphasized the fact that when a local police officer stopped him on the road one evening, the officer prolonged the traffic stop unnecessarily. Thus, the trial court should have suppressed the incriminating evidence that the officer found during the stop. The higher court reviewed the law around searches and seizures but ultimately disagreed with the defendant, denying his appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving on the highway when a patrolling officer stopped him for not having a front license plate. The officer conducted a regular traffic stop, asking for the defendant’s driver’s license as well as his insurance information. Instead of a license, the defendant pulled out a Texas ID card and said that his license was “buried under tickets” somewhere in the car.

The defendant admitted a few minutes later that he did not actually have a driver’s license. Over the course of the defendant’s conversation with the officer, he provided jumbled responses when the officer inquired as to where the defendant was coming from and where he was headed. When the officer asked about the defendant’s previous arrests, the defendant mentioned one assault charge; however, upon conducting a computer check, the officer discovered that the defendant had other charges on his record for drug possession.

Continue reading

In a recent opinion coming out of a Texas court, the defendant argued that a lower court had unreasonably denied his motion to suppress incriminating evidence. After considering the appeal, the higher court affirmed that the evidence was properly admitted, and the defendant’s appeal was denied.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two police officers were on duty when they received a call about a fight happening in a Family Dollar parking lot. The manager of the store had called the police to notify them of a man and woman arguing outside the entrance; during the call, the manager provided a description of the man’s vehicle as well as the direction he left the parking lot.

The officers responding to the call searched for a vehicle matching the manager’s description and quickly found a car of the same make and model. The officers initiated a traffic stop by pulling over the car, which was occupied by the defendant in this case. The defendant began speaking with the officers, immediately admitting that he had been involved in the Family Dollar altercation.

Continue reading

In a recent drug case coming out of a Texas court, the higher court agreed with a lower court’s ruling that incriminating evidence should have been suppressed. Originally, the defendant in the case was charged with marijuana possession, but he filed a motion to suppress the drugs because he did not give officers voluntary consent to search his home. The lower court agreed and accepted the defendant’s motion to suppress. When the State of Texas appealed this decision, the higher court kept the original ruling in place and suppressed the incriminating evidence.

The Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was out of town when his ex-wife called the police to report that there was marijuana in his house. She told the police that she was at the defendant’s house to pick up her minor son, but in reality, she already had her son with her and it was not a scheduled pick-up day.

Two officers went to the defendant’s home and found a small attached garage and greenhouse. As they walked towards the garage, the officers smelled marijuana. They looked through the window of the greenhouse and saw what they thought were marijuana plants. The officers called the defendant and said to him that they located his marijuana and would cause property damage if he did not consent to their search of the home.

Continue reading

In a recent drug case coming out of a Texas court, the defendant’s challenge to a lower court’s ruling was denied. The defendant took issue with the fact that the lower court denied her motion to suppress incriminating evidence, evidence that ultimately led to her conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Despite the defendant’s argument that the lower court improperly denied this motion to suppress, her appeal was ultimately denied.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the police officer involved in this case was posted in the parking lot of a Family Dollar store with the purpose of making sure people leaving the store arrived safely to their cars. The store’s employees had also asked the officer to tell the driver of a vehicle that had been parking in the store’s lot overnight to stop parking there.

A vehicle matching the employees’ description approached the parking lot, but then the driver changed course upon seeing the officer and drove away. The officer contacted dispatch and recognized the driver’s name as someone he had previously charged with drug possession. The officer followed the driver, who later became the defendant in this case. The defendant turned into a Dairy Queen parking lot, turned out her car’s lights, and eventually returned to the Family Dollar parking lot.

Continue reading

In a recent drug case in Texas, the court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress incriminating evidence. Originally charged with possession of PCP, the defendant appealed his guilty verdict by arguing that the court should not have denied his motion to suppress evidence. The higher court rejected the defendant’s argument, affirming the original verdict in his case.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a police officer in Texas somehow obtained information about a planned gang shooting that was supposed to happen in the near future. The officer learned that one member of the gang was en route to pick up guns from a private residence, so the officer immediately went to the house to see if he could see any suspicious activity. At some point during that surveillance, the officer saw the defendant drive up to the house, stop briefly, then drive away.

After following the car for a few minutes, the officer saw the defendant turn without signaling. The officer and his partner put on their lights to initiate a traffic stop. The defendant began driving slowly for about a minute before he finally pulled over – the officers suspected this was so he could hide the guns he had just taken from the house. When the officers were able to approach the stopped vehicle, they smelled marijuana. They then searched the car and the defendant himself, finding a bag of marijuana as well as a bottle of PCP in the defendant’s pants. The defendant was later found guilty of possession of PCP weighing more than 4 and less than 200 grams.

Continue reading

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects residents from unreasonable search and seizure of their property by law enforcement. The legal remedy for a defendant whose constitutional rights are violated in this context is the exclusion of any evidence found in such a search from their criminal prosecution. Although this rule seems straightforward and beneficial to Americans who are accused of crimes, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies are known to violate this rule and usually do all they can to admit evidence collected as a result of illegal searches. A Texas appellate court recently reversed a lower court decision allowing evidence to be admitted against a drug defendant that had come from an illegal search.

In the recently decided case, the defendant was stopped by an officer for operating a motor vehicle without registration tags. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant stopped his vehicle in a well-lit area near a gas station and was outside of the vehicle when the officer approached him. After making contact with the defendant, the officer requested that he put his hands behind his back so he could perform a “pat down” for weapons. As the officer attempted to put his hands inside one of the defendant’s pockets, the defendant began to resist, breaking free from the officer and fleeing behind a dumpster. The officer followed the defendant, placing him under arrest and finding a small bag of drugs on the ground, which was presumably dropped by the defendant after he was out of the officer’s line of sight.

The defendant was arrested and charged for drug possession. Before trial, the defendant challenged the admission of the drug evidence against him, arguing that he did not consent to a search and that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to reach into his pocket during the pat down. The prosecution claimed that the search was legal and consented to by the defendant, and even if it was an illegal search that the defendant’s own conduct in fleeing from the officer and throwing the drugs on the ground himself meant that the evidence was not found in the course of the search. The trial court accepted the prosecution’s arguments and ultimately convicted the defendant and sentenced him to 5 years of incarceration.

While Texas has taken some small steps in light of the national shift towards the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana, the drug is largely still illegal except for those with a valid prescription. The continued prohibition on marijuana possession—even in small amounts—has led many to seek out legal alternatives to marijuana. However, as lawmakers catch on to these new substances, they quickly respond by passing new laws and using existing laws to prosecute these look-alike drugs.

What Is Delta 8?

Delta 8, or Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol, is one of about 100 cannabinoids produced naturally by the cannabis plant. While Delta 8 is a naturally occurring substance, cannabis plants produce only a minimal amount of Delta 8. Delta 8 provides a similar “high” to smoking or ingesting marijuana. However, when someone consumes marijuana in its traditional form, it is Delta 9 THC that creates the intoxicating effect. However, taking Delta 8 will cause the user to test positive on a drug test.

Because marijuana plants produce so little Delta 8, most Delta 8 products are created using hemp-derived cannabidiol (CBD). Currently, at least for now, Delta 8 products are available in smoke shops and CBD stores across Texas for customers over the age of 21. However, the legality of Delta has recently been called into question.

Continue reading

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect defendants from unreasonable searches and seizures of themselves, their homes, and their property. Evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used against a defendant at trial. Thus, defendants who can prove that the evidence used against them was collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be entitled to the dismissal of the charges against them.

The Texas Court of Appeals recently heard an appeal by the State of Texas that challenged the suppression of evidence obtained against a defendant who had been accused of possession of drugs. The defendant in the recently decided case was driving a vehicle when he was recognized by a law enforcement officer as a known criminal offender. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the officer began to follow the defendant and witnessed him commit a traffic violation as he pulled into a gas station. The officer pulled behind the defendant and signaled him to stop, at which point the defendant exited his vehicle and behaved suspiciously. The officer engaged with the defendant and notified him that he was stopped for a minor traffic violation. The officer asked the defendant for consent to search his person and vehicle, which the defendant initially gave.

After another officer arrived on the scene, the defendant revoked the consent to search his vehicle and made statements suggesting that the officers were going to get a canine unit to search his car. As a result of the defendant’s statements, the officers called a canine unit, which took 38 minutes to arrive. The canine unit alerted the officers to the presence of marijuana in the car, which was ultimately found after a search was performed. As a result of the drugs being found, the defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

Contact Information