Texas Criminal Lawyer Blog

Regular readers of this blog will recall that I do a lot of work in Sierra Blanca, the infamous border stop that continues to net few major criminals but a lot of weekend warriors, most of whom had never seen the inside of a jail before their arrival at the checkpoint.

For a long time, Sierra Blanca has existed largely under the radar of our national media, but that all changed last year when legendary vocalist, activist, and pot aficionado Willie Nelson was caught up in its net and was charged in Hudspeth County,Texas with possession of six ounces of marijuana, a state jail felony. But Willy, being the class guy he is, got the charge lowered to a class B misdemeanor, (2oz. or less), by being, well, Willie. My sources from within the Sierra Blanca system report that Willie volunteered to perform at a law-enforcement shindig later this year. That remains to be seen.

In the meantime, Nelson's Sierra Blanca arrest has helped to galvanize a farflung network of people who are working daily to bring about the legalization of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. The problem is that the subject remains too taboo for the mainstream media, as the mere mention of legalization can quickly turn political, and then deteriorate into absurdity.

But it is deeply important to recognize what these efforts are not about: they are not, as many would have you believe, the plaintive cries of a bunch of twentysomethings who just want to kick back with their blacklights and bongs. on the contrary, By far the most compelling argument in favor of legalization is that cannabis is a unique and effective palliative drug, one that is often the only effective way to combat nausea and the crippling discomforts of AIDS and cancer treatment. Further supporting the cause of legalization is the fact that marijuana is statistically far less dangerous than alcohol, and that the only crime committed when a patient or user lights up is a victimless one.

These commonsense arguments have finally gained some traction in recent years, with both sides of the political spectrum getting into the game. Left-leaning activists believe that too much money and resources are being poured into criminalizing otherwise harmless people, while right-leaning activists hate the nanny-state aspect of these highly punitive laws. I recently had the unique opportunity to take an informal poll of members of a Texas banker's organization, who shared my hotel lounge one evening in San Antonio. The vote wasn't even close: the bankers were parents, and they were uncomfortable with the spector of their kids being busted for small amounts of pot by adrenalin-junky cops.

It was perhaps inevitable, then, that the Tea Party would begin organizing its own efforts to address our discredited national drug policy. A number of recent news stories have documented the evolution of this singular movement, which is being dubbed the Teapot Party. (Get it?) Like you, I am curious to see where this effort will lead, and whether the broad array of support it enjoys will ever translate into meaningful legislation.

Until that time, I will continue doing what I do best: defending my clients vigorously from our unjust federal drug crime laws -- and calling Sierra Blanca my home away from home.

I get asked a lot about Federal Court - what it looks like, how it works, and especially how it differs from the more familiar environment of state court. To many of my clients, the very notion of Federal Court looms large and mysterious, like some kind of terrifying cross between the Supreme Court and a galactic tribunal. So I want to devote a quick post to dispelling the various mythologies of Federal Court - and some tips on how to prepare for it effectively.

Federal Court, let us be clear, works a lot like state court. The setting, the sequence of arguments, the choreography, even the players are essentially the same. Sure, there is a U.S. Marshal standing in one corner, and the allegations tend to be far more grave, but ultimately the law is the law: navigating its waters successfully simply requires hard work and (ideally) a talented federal criminal attorney. Everything else, from the shabby wood paneling to the placement of the jury, will no doubt look familiar to anyone who has ever clicked past a legal drama on TV.

What makes Federal Court different? The short answer is: depth. Generally the arguments are more intricate, the preparation more involved, and the sentencing can dwarf anything on the state level. This is the Big Leagues, in other words, and there is little to no chance you will get sprung because a cop or state trooper fails to show. Federal cases cost our dear government plenty of money, and as a result the other side is deeply invested in a win.

What you need on your side is a great Texas federal criminal attorney. The law is always changing in Federal Court and the judges are highly demanding, so anything less than the full weight of strong legal counsel simply won't get the job done. Between indictment, jury trials, bench trials, evidence rulings, sentencing, and appeals, you get plenty of chances to stand up and fight for your freedom. But it all starts with good preparation - and a phone call to a criminal attorney who has been down this road many times before.

By now, most reasonable people would agree that our nation's War On Drugs has been a dismal failure. This "war" has sent incarceration rates skyrocketing, victimized millions of young people with zero violent tendencies, and criminalized medical patients coast to coast suffering with AIDS, cancer and chronic pain. The costs have been exorbitant, the gains few and fleeting. The true beneficiaries of this war are the politicians who earn machismo points for trumpeting "zero tolerance" laws to grab further enforcement funding.

One personal cost that doesn't always earn as much press, however, is the way our War On Drugs can tear families apart.

Recently I read a story that helped crystallize some of these points. A mother in Pennsylvania had her newborn daughter taken away from her by caseworkers and police when the infant was just three days old. The cause? A poppyseed muffin. Yes, it seems the mother, Elizabeth Mort, popped a false positive on a hospital drug test because she ate an offending muffin earlier in the week.

Let's take a few points in order here. First, there is the insanity of what actually happened. This particular hospital has a standing written policy to drug test all new mothers. This may make sense to you, or it may not. (See below.) Either way, what happened next was simply Orwellian - hospital staff, upon seeing a false positive at an astonishingly low level, promptly reported the mother to Lawrence County Children & Youth Services. The staff did this without telling Ms. Mort about her test results, without asking her any questions, and without so much as an interview to be sure they understood the circumstances. Needless to say, this was a gross violation of Ms. Mort's rights as a new parent.

But the larger point is that the policy itself is deeply flawed. Of course nobody wants a truly stricken heroin junkie to take a child home from the hospital. But the mere presence of any drugs in the system, including marijuana, is apparently enough to set the wheels in motion. This despite the fact that there is no data that suggests that anyone who has ever taken drugs is unfit to be a parent. The fact is that not all addicts are abusive parents. When compared to foster care, there is some value to the notion that many addicts may be able to effectively shield their children from the chaos of that narcotic burden while they seek treatment. Practices such as these are completely antithetical to the cause of reasonable drug policy, and the laws that support them deserve aggressive criminal drug attorneys on the other side of the ledger.

One final excellent point from the article:

And a mother who is actually on drugs and is aware of Jameson's practice of reporting mothers to child protective services based on one failed test? She's much less likely now to seek any prenatal care for her unborn baby, making the policy extremely counterproductive if the goal is to protect a child's life and not simply to sell some drug tests and provide an excuse for the local child services bureaucracy to demand more funding.

Revising our nation's absurd policy on drugs is an idea that spans the political spectrum. Left-leaning people want to ease the burden on at-risk kids who are being thrown in jail for victimless crimes. Conservatives and libertarians rightly see "war" is an expensive encroachment on our privacy, our agency, and our free will. I work hard to defend the victims of our nation's War On Drugs because Texas drug criminal defense is what I know best, but make no mistake: there are plenty of families out there getting no help at all.

A couple weeks ago I posted an in-depth series of tips for when you get pulled over by the cops. Some of these are common sense - don't touch! stay in the car! - but some others touch upon the basic rights provided you by our still-popular U.S. Constitution. I want to expand on these basic rights a little further, because they go beyond good advice and into the realm of Essential Legal Knowledge. Understanding your rights at a traffic stop can mean the different between a search-and-seizure and a routine stop - and between an arrest and an acquittal.

First things first. When the cop asks you for your "papers," you must provide them. License, registration, proof of insurance - the whole nine. If you are missing any of these, it could spawn a longer stop, calls to police headquarters and possible further police action. So keep your data handy! And don't argue.

...And that concludes my exhaustive list of your obligations at a traffic stop. So long as you stop short of actively breaking the law by threatening the cops, say, or producing a gun, you have fulfilled your legal obligations. Now onto the important things you do not have to do for the police.