Blog

In case you missed it, Casey Pachall, the starting quarterback for the TCU Horned Frogs, was arrested this week. As the article notes, and as any college football fan already knows, Pachall was suspended indefinitely from the team. Even a cursory scan of internet message boards will show that this is considered a “good thing,” impressing readers of such snap reactions that the conventional wisdom remains that an allegation of DWI should result in significant consequences. The purpose of this post isn’t to argue with the conventional wisdom, rather it is to disaffect the reader of the notion that the legal requirement of considering defendants innocent before conviction does not, in reality, have great effect. The truth of the matter is those accused of DWI can potentially be punished long before conviction, even by the court. The example of TCU’s QB is not isolated, as you no doubt know of one or more people accused of DWI who lose their jobs outright, are suspended, or simply lose privileges at their place of employment. However, even the court system can mete out punishment before a determination of guilt is made. An accused person can have his or her driver’s license suspended […]

The 9th Court of Appeals released 1 opinion today, a memorandum opinion concerning a Montgomery County criminal case: CHAD ERIC MINER, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS – Affirmed The 9th Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the Montgomery County Court at Law #5’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence prior to trial for DWI. At the suppression hearing the arresting officer testified that appellant did not maintain a single lane of driving and swerved/drifted onto the shoulder without indicating and without apparent purpose. The trooper testified that appellant was not a danger to any other persons on the seven lane road. The Court found, on the only issue, that the Trooper did have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle since the state met its burden of proof that a violation had or was about to occur under 545.058 of the Transportation Code. Since the Trooper had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle, the evidence from the stop cannot be suppressed. The Appellant argued that the section of the Transportation Code he allegedly violated, crossing a “fog line” onto an improved median, has several exceptions if a necessity arises (an example exception: “(5) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to […]

The short answer is yes. While your vehicle may be modified in an entirely safe and responsible manner, the police have the right to complete safety inspections on a vehicle. If the officer looks at your vehicle, and has reason to believe that your car may violate a state law concerning equipment or safety – such as headlights, taillights, noise or ‘general safety’, they may pull you over and inspect your vehicle. If, while they have you pulled over, they notice something out of place – such as the odor of marijuana, evasive attitude or signs of intoxication – they may begin to investigate those items of interest. Thus, if it’s modified, be careful.

Attorney’s Fees. You paid your lawyer and now you want your ex-spouse to repay you. There are times when a court can and may give you such an award. On top of that, the court may even deem the attorney’s fees as necessary expenses for a child or children involved in the suit. The result of such a finding is that the award of attorney’s fees may be awarded as additional child support, and enforcement of that award much easier than a mere judgment. However, in December the Texas Supreme Court ruled that in a non-enforcement modification action, no “necessaries” finding or additional child support order of attorney’s fees may be made. What does that mean for your case? Well, if you are seeking enforcement of the court’s prior order, this ruling doesn’t apply. Your ex-spouse preventing you from seeing your children, or violating an injunction such as allowing a specific person to babysit? Attorney’s fees may still be awarded. These kinds of scenarios are exactly what the term “necessary expended for the child’s benefit” is talking about. However, is the visitation schedule no longer working because of a change in your work schedule? Is child support no longer anywhere […]

In national DWI news this week, a Buffalo, NY, seat belt stop led to a DWI arrest. Just a reminder that you can be pulled over for any traffic offense and end up with a DWI. You do not need a DWI lawyer if you are never pulled over. Buckle that seat belt, stay within the speed limit, make sure your vehicle has all equipment in working condition, and so on. Better to stay out from the watchful eye of law enforcement altogether, because even when actually sober, a stop can lead to an arrest under the wrong circumstances.

If you have very driven on the busy highways within Houston, you have probably witness that the roads are swarming with semi-trucks. Unfortunately this often means that tuck crashes occur throughout the Houston area, you may have even witness one yourself. With the sheer size of these trucks, these accidents often mean serious collisions and injury for those involved, sometimes even death. Many of these truck accidents are the result of the driver being tired or fatigued on their long journeys. New regulations have recently been set by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in order to reduce the number of accidents. Truck drivers are generally paid by the size of their load or the distance they cover on a trip. This results in drivers pushing themselves to cover as much distance as possible. The new regulations mandate that drivers must take a minimum of 30 minutes break within their first 8 hours. They must also have a minimum of 34 hours off each week. Drivers are not supposed to drive more than 70 hours in a week. Much research has been done and shows that when drivers experience fatigue and drowsiness, their alertness and reflexes are not up to […]

In April the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in Missouri v. McNeely and held that, when a person is unwilling to give a blood sample, a warrant is necessary. The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires that a court issue a warrant if law enforcement wish to draw a person’s blood because in run-of-the-mill DWI/DUI cases the exigency exception to the warrant requirement does not apple. Missouri had argued that the fact that blood alcohol levels dissipate as time passes created such an exigency, however 5 justices, including Justice Sotomayor disagreed. Previous case law has influence the typical procedure. When they suspect a driver of DWI/DUI, law enforcement will often try to extract their blood to show intoxication. To do so, they generally take the driver to a medical facility where a phlebotomist or other medical professional will conduct the blood draw. From the viewpoint of the state, the obvious and unavoidable delay in time creates a per se exigency which should allow the state to bypass the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement where a search or seizure (here, a search) is conducted by law enforcement. The Court, in disagreeing with Missouri, instead held that a totality […]