Without the right attorney, there is no “Justice” in the “Criminal Justice System” in Texas – it is nothing more than the “Criminal System.” That is because the system is set up in such a way that is unfair to people who are accused of committing crimes and is a money-making machine that relies on you being prosecuted for crimes, even if you are innocent.
In Harris County, the police often go to great lengths to place people under arrest even if that person has done nothing wrong. They do this by making illegal searches of your vehicle or person, conducting unjustified sobriety tests, or sometimes even fabricating events in police reports.
After you are arrested, you are eventually taken to the Harris County Jail and put in medieval-like “holding” tanks for sometimes 2 or 3 days and fed 1 to 2 nasty half-frozen bologna sandwiches per day. You then get a “probable cause” hearing in front of a television judge, who always finds against you, and finally, you make it to your cell. After this torturous journey you are finally brought before the judge a few days later, and assigned a “court-appointed” lawyer who spends only 5 to 10 minutes visiting with you, who won’t listen to your side of the story, and who is PAID BY THE STATE!
Don’t let the Criminal Justice System throw you around like some rag-doll. Don’t rely on a lawyer “assigned” to you who is PAID BY THE STATE!
FIGHT BACK! Call me and I PROMISE I WILL HELP YOU WITH THAT FIGHT!
I handle all first degree, second degree, third degree, and state jail felonies:
Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer
Aggravated Sexual Assault
Assault Family Member (Second Offense)
Assault on a Peace Officer
DWI (Third Offense)
Evading Arrest in a Motor Vehicle
Obtaining Drugs by Fraud
Possession of a Controlled Substance
Possession of Marijuana
Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle
I handle all Class A and Class B misdemeanors:
Assault Family Member
Burglary of a Motor Vehicle
Driving While License Suspended
Possession of a Dangerous Drug
Possession of Marijuana
Tampering with a Government Record
Theft by Check
Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon
What Exactly Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?
When Can the Police Search My Person, My House, or My Vehicle?
What is Probable Cause?
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “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 no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law.
Whether a particular type of search is considered reasonable in the eyes of the law, is determined by balancing two important interests. On one side of the scale is the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. On the other side of the scale are legitimate government interests, such as public safety.
The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the LOCATION of the search or seizure. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).
Searches of a Home
•Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:
•If an officer is given consent to search. Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946).
•If the search is incident to a lawful arrest. United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973).
•If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).
•If the items are in plain view. Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).
Searches of a Person
•When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993).
Searches in Schools
•School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority; rather, a search of a student need only be reasonable under all the circumstances.
New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
Searches of Your Vehicle
•Where there is probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains evidence of a criminal activity, an officer may lawfully search any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found. Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009).
•An officer may conduct a traffic stop if he has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation has occurred or that criminal activity is afoot. Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984);
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).
•An officer may conduct a pat-down of the driver and passengers during a lawful traffic stop; the police need not believe that any occupant of the vehicle is involved in a criminal activity.
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).
•The use of a narcotics detection dog to walk around the exterior of a car subject to a valid traffic stop does not require reasonable, explainable suspicion. Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).
•Special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without any individualized suspicion. Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).
•An officer at an international border may conduct routine stops and searches. United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
•A state may use highway sobriety checkpoints for the purpose of combating drunk driving. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
•A state may set up highway checkpoints where the stops are brief and seek voluntary cooperation in the investigation of a recent crime that has occurred on that highway. Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).
•However, a state may not use a highway checkpoint program whose primary purpose is the discovery and interdiction of illegal narcotics. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).
Having the right lawyer is crucial when interpreting these and other cases to determine if the police violated the Fourth Amendment in conducting their search of the location and in seizing evidence to be used in the District Attorney’s attempt to convict you. In drug possession cases, for example, the State must show a link between you and the drugs. Your case must be DISMISSED if they cannot prove this BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!
Did the police have a VALID warrant when they seized the evidence in your case? Was a warrant NECESSARY? CALL ME AND I WILL FIGHT TO KEEP THE EVIDENCE OF IMPROPER SEARCHES AND SEIZURES OUT OF COURT AS INADMISSABLE!
Expunctions and Non-Disclosure Orders can be used to clear your record or seal it so potential employers and others in the public cannot see it. This is crucial when applying for certain jobs.
Expunction: An expunction is a court order to law enforcement agencies to purge any and all records they have of a case. This includes police departments, sheriff’s offices, DA’s offices, DPS and the FBI. An expunction is available if you were acquitted by a trial court (found not guilty), pardoned by the Governor and in other limited circumstances.
Non-Disclosure Orders: This order is available in certain cases if you were placed on deferred adjudication for an offence, you successfully lived out your deferred adjudication and the case was dismissed.
For felony cases, you must wait 5 years from the date the case was dismissed before you can file a petition for non-disclosure.
For the following misdemeanor cases you must wait 2 years from the date the case was dismissed to file a petition for non-disclosure:
Abuse of corpse
Advertising for placement of child
Cruelty to animals
Destruction of flag
Discharge of firearm
Disrupting meeting or procession
False alarm or report
Harboring runaway child
Interference with emergency telephone call
Leaving a child in a vehicle
Making a firearm accessible to a child.
Obstructing highway or other passageway
Possession, manufacture, transport, repair or sale of switchblade knife or knuckles
Silent or abusive calls to 911 service
Unlawful carrying of handgun by license holder
Unlawful carrying weapons
Unlawful possession of firearm
Unlawful transfer of certain weapons
Violation of protective order preventing offense caused by bias or prejudice
For all other misdemeanors you can file a petition for non disclosure as soon as the case is dismissed.
If you get convicted of or put on deferred adjudication for a new case after your case was dismissed, you are not eligible for a non-disclosure order.