In any Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) case, the prosecution must prove two primary facts:
1)
the person being charged (the "defendant") drove a vehicle, and
2) at the
same time, the defendant was "under the influence"—meaning that the
person's ability to drive safely was affected to an appreciable degree
by drinking alcohol, taking a drug, or a combination of alcohol and
drugs. A DWI defense can be anything that proves one of
these two elements wrong and prevents the prosecution from proving
its case. A valid defense might also prevent the prosecution from introducing
evidence at trial.
A significant part of the evidence against you in a DUI or DWI
case will usually consist of the arresting officer's observations and
impressions as to whether or not you were drunk. For example, the
officer may testify about the way you were driving (uneven speeds,
weaving, crossing the center line, running a red light, or hesitation
going through a green light), how you looked and acted once your vehicle
was stopped (bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, stumbling), or how you
performed on field sobriety tests. If you can challenge the officer's
observations or present evidence that might refute those observations,
you may be able to knock a big hole in the prosecution's case.
In some cases, a defendant may be able to introduce witnesses who can refute the officer's "opinions" by testifying that you didn't drink anything before you got in the car, that you appeared to be sober, or that there were other circumstances involved; i.e., you ran a red light because you were distracted by conversation, not because you were drunk. You may also be able to counter the officer's decision that you had been drinking
by offering valid explanations for how you looked or acted when you were pulled over.
For example, you may be able to prove that you did not perform well on field sobriety tests because of physical impairments or because the instructions were confusing.You might claim that your eyes were bloodshot because of lack of sleep or allergies, or your speech was slurred because of lack of sleep or medications you take.
Most DUI and DWI cases start with a driver getting pulled over, so
there usually isn't much argument over whether the defendant was
actually driving. But if a police officer didn't actually observe you
driving; i.e., the officer approached your idle car while you were behind
the wheel in a parking lot, the issue might be debatable.
If the officer did not have legal justification to stop your
vehicle and arrest you in the first place, or if the officer failed
to follow proper legal procedures during the arrest, any evidence
gleaned from the traffic stop or the arrest might be deemed
"inadmissible" and kept out of a court case.
This could leave the prosecution with no real case (for example, because
breathalyzer results and the arresting officer's testimony couldn't be
used as evidence), and the charges against you could be
dropped.
"Probable Cause" means that the facts support an objective belief that the person to be arrested has committed
a crime, or that a place or item to be searched bears evidence of a crime. The
obvious question in probable cause is "How likely must it be that the
defendant committed a crime, or that the place or item contains criminal
evidence?"
If an officer did not have probable cause
to stop your vehicle, detain you, or arrest you for drunk driving, then
you may be able to keep any evidence obtained during the arrest from
being admitted at trial. For example, if you believe you were stopped
simply because of your race or ethnicity rather than because you were driving
erratically or appeared to be intoxicated, you may be able to
challenge the arrest.
In Texas, an adult who drives with a blood alcohol content (BAC)
level of .08% or above is guilty of Driving While Intoxicated. For drivers under the
age of 21, almost all states set the limit at .01% or .02%.
The police administer chemical tests to measure the BAC in your
breath, blood, urine, or saliva, and the results of these tests are usually the main evidence entered in the prosecution's case against you. If you can
successfully challenge the accuracy of these tests, the test results may
be deemed inadmissible at trial. Vials used in collecting medical blood samples may lack anticoagulant
and preservatives, the antiseptic used to cleanse the area may contain
alcohol, and any disease process affecting the liver, such as hepatitis, will impair blood test results.
Also, when alcohol is consumed it can
take from thirty minutes to one and a half hours to be absorbed by the
body. This is influenced by the last time a person consumed food. This
is a viable defense when your BAC would have been below the legal limit
when you were driving, but by the time the breath or blood test was
performed the level had increased beyond the legal limit.
A conviction of DWI or DUI can have serious effects on your
employment, insurance costs and many other aspects of your daily life.
If you have been charged with impaired driving you need an experienced criminal defense lawyer.
Contact Parnham & Associates today at
713.224.3967. Depending on the circumstances, we may be able to save your license.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that alcohol-related collisions represented 40% of
total traffic deaths in the US. Most states have enacted severe laws in
order to deal with the problem of impaired driving, and while the intent
of these laws -removing dangerous drivers from public roads- is indeed
noble, they may also allow and even encourage law enforcement officers to
engage in practices that are constitutionally questionable. For example,
police may conduct "sweeping stops" in which they pull over every
vehicle passing through a certain point, regardless of a lack of
probable cause. Or they can instigate programs such as the "no refusal
weekend" in which judges may rubber-stamp warrants for blood tests on
suspected offenders.
Nearly two million drunk-driving cases are filed by law enforcement officers around the country ever year. DWI/DUI cases represent the single largest category of criminal
infractions of all reported cases, with about 200,000 more cases
processed each year than all theft and larceny offenses combined.
Various departments of law enforcement often instruct their officers to watch for cars leaving popular
nightspots, and they will almost always find the "probable cause" they need in order to
stop a driver and start the DWI/DUI process rolling. Furthermore, law
enforcement agencies have what are commonly called DWI/DUI Task Forces.
These officers have extensive training and experience related to finding
people who may be intoxicated, as well as training on how to testify
against defendants charged with DUI/DWI. Prosecutors are also very
experienced in trying DWI/DUI cases because so many citizens are charged
with this crime.
In Texas and many other states the legal limit for intoxication is .08%
Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC). However, if an officer suspects your
driving is impaired you can still be stopped and arrested for DWI
regardless of your BAC. In most cases suspicion of DWI also gives the
police a probable cause to search your vehicle.
If you are charged with Driving While Intoxicated or Driving Under the Influence in Texas, it is important to know that you have only 15 days from the date of arrest to
request a hearing on your driver’s license. If you fail to request a
hearing, your license may be suspended and you face the probability of
paying huge fines for several years. It is important that you hire legal
representation for this hearing to challenge the license suspension.
In any Texas DWI Conviction the Texas Department Of Public Safety is authorized to place a surcharge on your driver’s license. This charge will range from
$1,000.00 to $2,000.00 a year for three years. Depending on whether you
provided a breath sample, and the results, you could be facing a
$6,000.00 fee to keep your license. In addition to the criminal consequences of a DWI/DUI conviction you
face other civil penalties including license suspension, making it difficult for you to travel to work and
efficiently meet your daily obligations even
before your day in court.
In Texas, "intoxicated" is defined as having (1) lost the normal use of
your mental faculties, (2) lost the normal use of your physical
faculties, or (3) having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or
greater. A jury must believe the State has proven one of these elements
beyond a reasonable doubt; however, driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the limit of 0.08 is illegal regardless of the
circumstances. BAC is determined by conducting a scientific analysis of
the driver’s blood, breath, or urine.
If you have been charged with driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or driving while intoxicated, an experienced attorney has several areas to explore in preparing a defense.
Improper Stop and/or Detention:
An arrest for DUI
usually occurs in one of two circumstances; either the officer
witnesses the operation of a vehicle in a manner which may indicate that the driver is impaired, or
the officer stops the defendant for a regular traffic offense and then suspects that the driver is impaired during
the course of the stop.
If the officer suspects you are impaired, they will request that you
take a series of field sobriety tests which you can, and should, refuse.
Failure of a field sobriety test immediately provides probable cause to arrest you for
DWI.
However, given the
subjective nature of this proof standard, any physical signs of impairment may be sufficient
probable cause for the officer to make an arrest. After an arrest occurs, it is
best to refuse all further testing or interrogation to keep from
incriminating yourself to the officer who already thinks he or she
already has probable cause.
Both reasonable suspicion and probable cause are terms defined by
constitutional law. Reasonable suspicion is the standard that must exist
before a law enforcement officer can pull you over for DWI or a traffic
violation. A lesser standard of proof than probable cause, reasonable suspicion
must be based on more than a hunch: there must be specific facts from which a rational inference is made. Basically, unless
another reasonable person or officer could believe that a person is, has been, or is about to engage in
criminal activity based on the circumstances present,
the standard of reasonable suspicion does not exist. Probable cause is a higher standard of proof: the presence of a reasonable amount of suspicion
that is supported by circumstances strong enough to justify a prudent
and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true.
An officer can stop you for DWI based on
reasonable suspicion alone, but probable cause must exist for a DWI
arrest to occur in Texas. If you believe that the police officer that
stopped you for DWI did so without either, you may be the subject of an
unlawful stop and you may have a valid defense which an experienced DWI
attorney can use to fight your charges.
Without either reasonable suspicion or probable cause present in a
DWI, you have been subjected to an unlawful stop and any
related evidence may be dismissed. It is important remember that the
judge determines whether reasonable suspicion and probable cause exist
when a motion to suppress is submitted, not the law enforcement officer
that made the stop. The judge is not allowed to view the police report
and must make the determination based on testimony and any physical
evidence, such as video.
Additionally, if the law enforcement officer violated
your rights or failed to follow arrest procedures; i.e., they failed to read you your Miranda rights, denied your right to an
attorney, or failed to advise you of the consequences for a DWI chemical test refusal, you may also have grounds for an improper stop.
Use of the "Field Sobriety Test" and Breathalyzer:
The first "evidence" gathered by police officers after a stop for suspected DWI typically consists
of field or roadside sobriety tests. These agility tests are supposed
to indicate that the person suspected of drunk driving was actually
impaired or in some way “a less safe driver.”
Recent scholarly studies have shown that field sobriety tests are not
given uniformly, that there is no scientific basis for assuming they are
valid, and that most officers either use the wrong tests or improperly
instruct the suspect on how to perform the tests. A defense attorney can
obtain a pretrial ruling that the tests and their alleged indication of
impairment must be excluded from evidence due to lack of scientific
foundation and faulty instructions.
Any other “observation” evidence from a police officer will generally
be inconclusive and subject to interpretation. For
example, bloodshot eyes can be caused by conditions other than
drunkenness, including contact lenses, allergies, or lack of sleep. A
defense attorney can analyze the evidence that will likely be
presented and take the time to investigate the medical background of
clients and the environmental contaminants they have been exposed to.
Most alleged evidence of intoxication can be neutralized or eliminated
from the state’s presentation with findings from this investigation.
In the overwhelming majority of drunk-driving cases in which police
obtain a chemical test, an infrared breath analysis machine is used rather than
a blood test. These machines are so
unsophisticated that virtually no scientist would ever trust the results
as a basis for scholarly research or scientific investigation.
If the officer was not
certified to administer a Breathalyzer test or failed to
follow the necessary procedures prior to the breath test, or if the device
was not properly maintained, the test results will be inadmissible in court.
Contaminated Blood Tests:
BAC tests, like any other type of forensic evidence, are not immune to challenge on a variety of grounds.
Vials used in collecting medical blood samples may lack anticoagulant and preservatives.The antiseptic used to cleanse the area may contain alcohol in amounts sufficient to produce measurable amounts of alcohol on a gas chromatograph. Also, while many jurisdictions have regulations and procedures governing blood testing, and despite the fact that most specifically prohibit using any alcohol solution as a skin cleanser, some of the swabs that are used in blood collection kits contain a substance known as benzalkonium chloride as an active ingredient. This compound contains approximately 2 percent (2%) or more ethanol concentration.
Swabbing the skin with ethanol before taking a blood sample for measuring blood ethanol concentration may increase the apparent blood ethanol level by up to 0.018 percent (g/dL), even if the skin is allowed to dry before the sample is taken.
The blood taken from a driving while intoxicated (DWI) suspect involved in an accident or car crash may also be contaminated if there was an intravenous fluid being administered at the time the blood was drawn.
Some police departments and state forensic laboratories analyze whole blood. Many hospitals and clinical laboratories routinely analyze only serum. Evidence of a client’s blood alcohol level indicating a result of 0.10 percent (g/dL) BAC may, in fact, reflect a true BAC of 0.08 to 0.09 g/dL if serum was used.
The human body eliminates the amount of alcohol by oxidation of the “poison” (alcohol) in the liver. Like any other foreign compound, alcohol is broken down by enzymes in the liver and gradually reduced until 100 percent is eliminated. Therefore, any disease process affecting the liver, such as hepatitis, will impair results. Also, any condition that causes “extracellular” water retention (heart disease or many forms of high blood pressure or diabetes, for example) will alter results.
Rising blood alcohol concentration:
When alcohol is consumed, it can
take from thirty minutes to one and a half hours to be absorbed by the
body. This is influenced by the last time a person consumed food. This
is a viable defense when your BAC would have been below the legal limit
when you were driving, but by the time the breath or blood test was
performed the level had increased beyond the legal limit.
A conviction of DWI or DUI can have serious effects on your
employment, insurance costs and many other aspects of your daily life.
If you have been charged with impaired driving you need an experienced criminal defense lawyer.
Contact Parnham & Associates today at
713.224.3967. Depending on the circumstances, we may be able to save your license.
Texas Penal Code Sec. 22.011 defines sexual assault in a manner which covers a wide range of incidents, most of which involve
an allegation that the accused caused penetration by a sexual organ
without the victim's effective consent. Sexual assault can include
vaginal, anal or oral sex, and the accused can be a male or female. Further, the statute sets the minimum legal age of consent at 17. Charges of sexual assault of a child are considered aggravated if the child is
under 14 years of age, if a deadly weapon is used, if a "date rape drug" known as rohypnol or ketamine was used with the intent of making the offense easier to commit, or if serious bodily
injury is threatened.
A separate crime, Indecency with a Child, is defined by Texas Penal Code Sec. 21.11
as either engaging in sexual contact (defined as touching of the genitals with intent
to arouse or gratify someone sexually) with a child, exposure of one's
anus or genitals to a child under 17, or causing the child to expose his
or her anus or genitals to the actor with the intent to arouse or
gratify someone sexually.
Indecency with a Child by Contact in most circumstances is a Second Degree Felony (2 to 20 years), and
Indecency with a Child by Exposure is a Third Degree Felony (2 to 10 years).
Criminal Statutory Rape, as defined in Texas Penal Code Section 22.011(a)(2) is
another unique form of rape charge in that its victims consent to the sexual
acts, although they are not of age to do so with someone over the age of
19. Like many states attempting to
mitigate the rigidity of statutory rape laws, the state of Texas has a
“three year rule,” which states that consensual sexual acts between two people who are over the age of 14 and are
within three years of age of another, do not comprise criminal statutory rape.
Defendants accused of statutory rape often claim that they had no reason
to know that their partner was underage, or that the victim lied about their age and a
reasonable person would have believed them; but other than the 3-year age gap exception, there are no other exceptions
to statutory rape in Texas.
In addition to these criminal penalties, Texas law requires those who have been convicted of certain sex offenses
and other crimes to register as a sex offender upon release from state
supervision. Most of the information that convicted sex offenders are required to
provide is made available to the public in the Sex Offender Database.
This database is accessible on-line from the Texas Department of Public
Safety's Web site. Only certain information, like the offender's social
security and driver's license numbers and any information that could
identify the victim, are kept confidential.
Additionally, local
law enforcement may contact schools, print notices in the local
newspaper or send out postcard notifications to alert members of the
community of the presence of certain high-risk offenders in their
neighborhoods.
The false accusation of rape is the intentional reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred. It is difficult to assess the prevalence of false accusations because they are often conflated with non-prosecuted cases under the designation "unfounded." However, in the United States, the FBI Uniform Crime Report in 1996 and the United States Department of Justice in 1997 stated 8% of rape accusations in the United States were regarded as unfounded or false.
David Lisak's study, published in 2010 in Violence Against Women, classified as false 8 out of the 136 (5.9%) reported rapes at an American university over a ten-year period. Applying IACP guidelines, a case was classified as a false report if there was evidence that a thorough investigation was pursued and that the investigation had yielded evidence that the reported sexual assault had in fact not occurred.
It is extremely difficult to assess the prevalence of false accusations, and there are many reasons other than falsity that can result in a rape case being closed as unfounded or unproven. However, while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of false allegations they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%. Although these percentages may not seem high, a false accusation of sexual
assault immediately changes the life of the accused, jeopardizing careers, marriages, and
reputations. More than any other type of crime, an accusation of sexual
wrongdoing destroys a person’s life.
In some instances, a person makes false allegations because of
jealously, or in an attempt to seek revenge on someone who did not reciprocate
their feelings. Accusations of sexual misconduct also frequently come
up in divorce or child custody cases, student-teacher relationships, employer-employee relationships and in any other context where the accuser may have a motive to lie.
Even if the defendant is innocent, it often requires an
entire trial in order for this determination to be made, during
which the defendant may well be ostracized or publicly ridiculed by the media.
Public hysteria regarding child molestation has changed
the rules of the criminal justice system; physical and sexual
abuse cases involving minors must be defended in an entirely different manner than the
normal criminal case. In many cases, the child
accuser does not have to appear in court and face the accused; instead,
the state can offer the child's testimony through a video tape made by
agents of the prosecution. "Hearsay" evidence may be admitted in a case, and there is often no physical evidence presented. The state does not have to prove guilt, but simply make the accusation;
Once the accusation is made, the defendant must prove innocence beyond a
reasonable doubt. Failing that, the jury will very often not take a chance the
defendant may be a child molester, and will convict.
No other area in Criminal Law creates public outrage the way sex crimes
do. The mere allegation of a sexual offense is sufficient to destroy
reputations, careers, families and lives.
At the same time, there are very few areas of Criminal Law where we have
seen such a high percentage of convictions overturned because the
person was actually innocent and subsequently cleared by DNA or witness
recantation. A false allegation case can only be defended successfully by an attorney
with significant trial experience and specifically with child sexual
assault cases.
If you have been charged with sexual assault contact Parnham & Associates today at (713) 224.3967 or use our convenient online submission form.
Depending on the circumstances, we have many options in mounting a strong defense for you.
Under Texas state law sexual assault, commonly known as rape, is defined in Texas Penal Code §22.011.
Sexual assault covers a wide range of incidents, most of which involve
an allegation that the accused caused penetration by a sexual organ
without the victim's effective consent. Sexual assault can include
vaginal, anal or oral sex, and the accused can be a male or female.
In cases of sexual assault involving two or more adults in which deadly weapons are not used, the crime is typically considered a Second Degree felony and carries a potential sentence of
2-20 years imprisonment, plus a $10,000 fine and lifetime registration
as a sex offender. It is also a “3g” offense, which means a person
convicted of the offense and sentenced to prison must serve at least 50%
of the sentence before being eligible for parole. It also means that a
judge may not place a person so convicted on ordinary community
supervision (however, the judge may place the person on deferred
adjudication).
When the alleged assault includes certain factors, the charge may be elevated to the more severe offense of aggravated sexual assault. Aggravated Sexual Assault is described independently in the Texas Penal Code, and it shares elements of both the Aggravated Assault offense and the Sexual Assault offense.
The crime of Sexual Assault can be elevated to Aggravated Sexual Assault in any of these cases:
The victim is under the age of 17, an elderly individual or a disabled individual;
The defendant causes or acts with another person who causes serious bodily injury or attempts to cause the death of the
victim or another person in the course of the same criminal episode;
The defendant threatens the victim or any person with death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
The defendant uses or exhibits a deadly weapon;
The defendant administers or provides flunitrazepam, otherwise known as rohypnol,
gamma hydroxybutyrate, or ketamine to the victim of the offense with the
intent of facilitating the commission of the offense.
Conviction of aggravated sexual assault can lead to a prison sentence
of 5 to 99 years, or even life in prison. Additionally, if the victim
was younger than six or was younger than 14 and was subjected to actual
violence, the perpetrator could face a minimum of 25 years in prison.
Again, registry as a sex offender is mandatory.
The most apparent issue in sexual assault cases involving adults is that of consent. There are several situations in which Texas law says consent is lacking for the purposes of the Sexual Assault law;
The victim was compelled to submit or participate by the use or threat of physical force or violence against the them or another person;
At the time of the sexual assault the defendant knew that the victim was incapable either of appraising the nature of the act, or of resisting it as a result of mental disease or defect;
The defendant knew that the other person was unaware that the sexual assault was occurring, or intentionally impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the their conduct by administering any substance without the other person’s knowledge;
The defendant is a public servant, mental health services provider, clergyman or a health care services provider who coerces or exploits the victim’s emotional dependency on them in order to make them submit or participate;
The defendant is an employee of a facility where the other person is a resident, unless the employee and resident are formally or informally married to each other.
Even if there is no physical evidence to support an accusation
of sexual assault a charge can still be filed. In
many cases the evidence boils down to “he said, she said”, and unfortunately false
allegations do occasionally arise; for instance as a result of divorce, child custody battles, conflicts between a child and a step-parent; or in relationships involving an unstable person. Sexual assault charges are sometimes made after consensual sex,
for one reason or another. Tragically, children are also sometimes coerced
or manipulated into making false charges of sexual assault.
No other area in Criminal Law creates public outrage the way sex crimes
do. The mere allegation of a sexual offense is sufficient to destroy
reputations, careers, families and lives.
At the same time, there are very few areas of Criminal Law where we have
seen such a high percentage of convictions overturned because the
person was actually innocent and subsequently cleared by DNA or witness
recantation.
If you have been charged with sexual assault, possession of
child pornography or prostitution related crimes you need an experienced
criminal defense lawyer. Contact Parnham & Associates today at (713) 224.3967 or use our convenient online submission form.
Depending on the circumstances, we have many options in mounting a strong defense for you.
One of the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is the so-called ''automobile'' exception. If a vehicle is stopped by police, a warrantless search of the vehicle is usually allowable under this exception if the police have probable cause to believe that it contains evidence of a crime. This is based on the principle of exigency, or the need for immediate action arising out of the likely
disappearance of the vehicle and the possibility of destruction of the
evidence.
Generally, a speeding or traffic violation by itself does not justify
the search of a vehicle, but this rule is not without exceptions. If the
officer has a reasonable belief that they might be assaulted by the
driver, or if the driver fails to produce a valid license or
produces a forged one, a search will normally be valid.
In most instances, a valid search of a vehicle can include any containers within the car, such as packages or luggage. While there must be a connection between a crime and the search, there is no rule that the search be limited only to items relating to that crime; i.e., the police can search the driver and the car if they have a reasonable belief, or probable cause to believe, that there is a gun in the driver's possession or in the car.
When there is probable cause to search a vehicle, it is not necessary that the search take place immediately. A valid search can occur long after the initial stop and even after the car has been moved to the police station or impound lot.
When a car is impounded, the police can search it for the purposes of taking an inventory of its contents. It is not necessary that the search be conducted for the purpose of seeking evidence of a crime. While the police can search the entire car and catalog its contents, they are limited in what they can do with the contents; for an inventory search to be valid, it must be made pursuant to standardized police procedures.
If a driver gives a police officer permission to search their car, the warrant requirement is, of course, not necessary. Consent can be either ''express'' or ''implied.''
Implied consent usually becomes a factor when a driver is suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol (''DUI'' or ''DWI''); many states now have statutes that specify that when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a driver is impaired, the driver's use of the public streets is considered implied consent to search of the driver's person and vehicle.
Express consent
arises when a police officer asks for and receives permission to search the driver's car. When such consent is given, the officer usually is permitted to open a closed container in the car if it might reasonably hold the object of the search.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defines the right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures. If you have been subjected
to an unreasonable search by law enforcement, contact Parnham &
McWilliams today at (713) 224-3967 or visit www.parnhamandassociates.com for a free consultation. We are dedicated
to protecting your Constitutional Rights.
To stop a vehicle, a police officer only needs a reasonable suspicion
that the driver is committing, or has committed, a traffic infraction. Usually that suspicion arises from the officer's own
observation of the driver and vehicle; however, police also have the
authority to stop a vehicle based upon information from an another anonymous driver or
pedestrian.
On its own, a simple traffic violation will
not justify the search of a vehicle; a driver's
excessive speed or other minor traffic infraction does not usually indicate that the driver is violent, and it
does not give the police officer any reason to think that he is in
danger of being assaulted.
However, if the
officer has a reasonable belief that he or she might be assaulted by the
driver, or if the motorist fails to produce a driver's license or
produces a forged one, a search by the officer may be valid.
The officer's suspicion might be reasonable even if the officer makes a mistake of fact, for instance if their computer mistakenly reports that the driver's license is under suspension. However, if the officer does stop a driver based on a mistake of law, the officer's suspicion is not reasonable and the stop will usually be invalidated.
A pretextual traffic stop occurs when an officer uses the suspicion of a traffic violation
as an excuse to stop a vehicle for another reason. Pretext stops may
still be valid even if a reasonable officer would not have made the
stop. Thus, the officer's ulterior motive for making the stop may not be
relevant in determining the validity of the stop. Still, many state
courts will not blindly accept the officer's pretextual traffic
violation justification. For example, weaving and improper lane changes
may not be sufficient to show the pretext of a traffic violation unless
it is also shown that the motorist's driving posed a safety issue to
another vehicle.
Roadblocks or sobriety checkpoints are permitted under the
Fourth Amendment so long as they are conducted in a neutral or
non-arbitrary manner, their intrusion on motorists is limited, and they
further an important governmental or public purpose. There is no
requirement that an officer have a reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity to justify a stop at a roadblock.
Independent of traffic violations, if a police officer has a
reasonable suspicion that a motorist is either committing or preparing
to commit a crime, the officer is justified in stopping the vehicle.
Once police officers have lawfully stopped a vehicle, either because
of probable cause for a traffic infraction or reasonable suspicion of
criminal activity, they can:
Order the occupants out of the vehicle
Ask to see the driver's license, registration, and other relevant
information, such as proof of insurance.
Conduct a limited search to gain access to the vehicle identification number.
Conduct a dog sniff (''canine sniff''), so long as the sniff does not extend the length of the stop.
Take actions reasonably related to the original reason for stopping
the vehicle, or related to suspicions that develop during the stop.
Frisk for weapons if they have or develop a reasonable suspicion that the occupants may be armed or dangerous, and
Search the vehicle if the stop provides probable cause for the
officers to believe it contains illegal or stolen goods or evidence of a
crime.
When it comes to criminal law cases, an experienced and effective
criminal defense attorney can mean the difference between a prison
sentence and reduced or dismissed charges. The lawyers of Parnham & Associates are dedicated to defending the rights of the accused and our
criminal defense attorneys are committed to the presumption of
innocence. Even in less serious cases, a good criminal defense attorney
can make a serious impact on the outcome of the case by ensuring that
the rights of the accused are protected throughout the legal process.
For these and other reasons, it is vital that those accused of a crime
select the most competent, experienced and effective attorney available.
Harris County, Texas is the most populous county in the state and the third-most populous county in the United States. Its county seat is Houston, the largest city in Texas and fourth-largest city in the United States.
Harris County also has one of the most underfunded public mental health
systems in a state that consistently ranks last, or almost last, in per
capita mental health spending. Community-based mental health care is funded mostly by state government,
and for years, the Texas Legislature starved its public system. In 2003 Texas lawmakers slashed funding, and thousands of people who relied on the system were
suddenly ineligible.
Many went into crisis and were picked up by police
or wound up in emergency rooms, where they stayed briefly, stabilized,
and were released, still unable to get treatment in the community.
In Texas, a defendant found not competent to stand trial in a violent offense is supposed to be committed for treatment in North Texas' Vernon State Hospital in order to attempt to restore competency.
Texas’ mental health hospital system was designed and built a century
ago, when Texas was very rural and good treatment options for mental illness
weren’t available. Large campuses of 60 to 90 acres, often in rural
areas of the state, were built to house 3,000 patients each. Most patients sent to
these facilities weren’t expected to recover.
Although these hospitals still play an essential role in the mental health delivery system,
many of them are functionally obsolete. Many are abandoned, decaying and considered a safety hazard. Buildings
used for clinical care are in reasonable condition but poorly designed
for modern care, with convoluted hallways with poor visibility from
nursing stations. Higher-acuity patients require more caregivers,
further crowding already limited common spaces.
A recent Department of State Health Services study
determined that five state hospitals- Rusk, Austin, San Antonio,
Terrell and North Texas at Wichita Falls - were beyond repair and should
be replaced. Furthermore, the buildings and facilities at the Big
Spring, Kerrville and North Texas at Vernon state hospitals, as well as
the Rio Grande State Center, El Paso Psychiatric Center and Waco Center
for Youth, should be repaired and renovated, and the unused, decaying
buildings on these campuses should be torn down, the report said.
Because of the lack of beds in Vernon Hospital particularly, the Harris County Jail has now become the largest mental health facility in Texas and the second largest in the USA. It has more beds dedicated to the mentally ill than all other hospitals in the state, combined. Inmates may wait months before being transferred to Vernon.
When it comes to criminal law cases, an experienced and effective criminal defense attorney can mean the difference between a prison sentence and reduced or dismissed charges. The lawyers of Parnham & Associates are dedicated to defending the rights of the accused and our criminal defense attorneys are committed to the presumption of innocence.
