<![CDATA[Tommy Vaughn - DWI Trial Lawyer - Defending Liberty Blog]]>Sat, 27 Apr 2024 07:25:57 -0500Weebly<![CDATA[Bexar County DA Modifies the Take Responsibility Program]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:22:23 GMThttp://tommyvaughnlaw.com/defending-liberty-blog/bexar-county-da-modifies-the-take-responsibility-programPicture
New Bexar County District Attorney, Nico LaHood, has modified the terms of the office's Take Responsibility Program for first time DWI offenders.  Read the terms here.

It appears the only major changes are that the fine has increased from $500 to $850 and instead of requiring a mandatory conviction of Obstructing a Highway, the State may offer deferred adjudication.

My first impression is that increasing the fine is a step in the wrong direction.  When you add an $850 fine to court costs, probation fees, ignition interlock fees, DWI classes, and UA fees we're talking about costs of nearly $3000 that someone would be required to pay over the course of 12 months.

I doubt that the possibility of deferred adjudication will entice very many clients to "take responsibility."  If the accused isn't allowed to expunge the DWI or non-disclose the Obstructing a Highway, I see very little benefit of receiving deferred adjudication.

I know Mr. LaHood to be a true seeker of justice.  Let's hope he extends the MILES program of pre-trial diversion to first time DWI offenders.
]]><![CDATA[The Cops Must Obtain a Warrant to Take Your Blood]]>Fri, 28 Nov 2014 20:45:11 GMThttp://tommyvaughnlaw.com/defending-liberty-blog/the-cops-must-obtain-a-warrant-to-take-your-bloodThe Texas Court of Criminal Appeals finally ruled that the warrantless, nonconsensual testing of a DWI suspect's blood is a violation of an individual's Fourth Amendment right.  This means that if you are arrested for DWI and refuse to consent to a breath or blood test, then the police must obtain a search warrant before they can legally draw your blood.

If you were arrested for DWI and were subjected to a "mandatory" blood draw, then make sure your lawyer knows that the law has changed, and that the results of the blood test cannot be used as evidence against you at trial.

The name of the case is State v. Villarreal.  Make sure your lawyer has read it.
]]><![CDATA[The Duty of a Criminal Defense Lawyer]]>Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:23:19 GMThttp://tommyvaughnlaw.com/defending-liberty-blog/the-duty-of-a-criminal-defense-laweyrLaw enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent.  They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime.  To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. 

But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth.  Our system assigns him a different mission. He must be and is interested in preventing the conviction of the innocent, but, absent a voluntary plea of guilty, we also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty.  The State has the obligation to present the evidence.  Defense counsel need present nothing, even if he knows what the truth is.  He need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution's case.  If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course.  Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State's case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. 

Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe, but, more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth, just as he will attempt to destroy a witness who he thinks is lying.  In this respect, as part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which, in many instances, has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.

United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 256-258 (1967).]]><![CDATA[2014 SACDLA Fiesta Medal]]>Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:47:39 GMThttp://tommyvaughnlaw.com/defending-liberty-blog/2014-sacdla-fiesta-medal
Picture
]]><![CDATA[Uncle Sam Wants to Know Where You Are at All Times]]>Sat, 23 Nov 2013 22:54:44 GMThttp://tommyvaughnlaw.com/defending-liberty-blog/uncle-sam-wants-to-know-where-you-are-at-all-timesPicture
From the federal bureaucracy that brought us the tests that were designed to convict everyone of drunk driving, er, measure sobriety, comes an announcement from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that they intend to require all vehicles to be monitored 24/7 by Uncle Sam.

NHTSA will require that all motor vehicles become equipped with something called Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communications technology.  V2V will constantly broadcast, via radio wave, the car's location, direction, speed, and the number of passengers in the vehicle.  Failure to install and maintain this device in your vehicle will be a crime, enforced at gunpoint.

NHTSA hopes to have this legislation passed within the next five weeks.  According to US Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, the V2V program will serve two main purposes: "To coerce people out of their cars"; and to tax people "on the number of miles that they traveled."

I'll leave you with this gem of a quote by LaHood.  He either consciously or subconsciously gives about the best definition of government I've ever heard:  "About everything we do here (in the Department of Transportation) is government intrusion in people's lives."

Further Reading:

]]><![CDATA[Links from the Week]]>Sat, 09 Nov 2013 20:26:37 GMThttp://tommyvaughnlaw.com/defending-liberty-blog/links-from-the-weekDomestic Violence: 271 Calls for help
Read this story and tell me there is not a war on men in Guadalupe County.

Atlanta man shatters coast-to-coast "Cannonball Run" speed record
How long before an overzealous prosecutor or Sheriff gets a subpoena for this guy's GPS data or obtains traffic camera videos and charges him with Deadly Conduct or Reckless Driving?

New Braunfels Municipal Court Week
Not only do they want our money, freedom, and time, but now they want our thanks and appreciation. 

The last time you had to pay a ticket did you notice that they referred to you as their "customer?"  I have noticed this in more and more courts the past few years and it makes me sick every time I hear it.  

Customer is defined as the recipient of a good, product, or service obtained from a seller for a monetary or other valuable consideration.  By its definition, the customer in one half of a voluntary, free-market transaction between a buyer and seller.

When the government orders someone to court and demands tribute, their threat is backed by the barrel of a gun.  No matter how trivial the charge, the implicit (and sometimes explicit) threat is "give us your money or we will send men wearing funny costumes and carrying guns to your house to kidnap you and throw you in a cage."

Next time you are arrested, harassed, ticketed or fined remember to thank them for their service. 

]]><![CDATA[When Judges Attack]]>Sat, 26 Oct 2013 19:22:44 GMThttp://tommyvaughnlaw.com/defending-liberty-blog/when-judges-attackJudge Accused of Creating False Court Records
By: Kiah Collier - Houston Chronicle - October 24, 2013

"A Houston-area lawyer has filed a criminal complaint with the Harris County District Attorney's office accusing 311th state District Court Judge Denise Pratt of backdating court records to make it appear that she has issued rulings and filed court documents sooner than she actually did..."

Read the Rest of the Story
]]><![CDATA[A Problem with Probation ]]>Sat, 28 Sep 2013 20:35:52 GMThttp://tommyvaughnlaw.com/defending-liberty-blog/the-problem-with-probation-departmentsTwo recent articles from the San Antonio Current and Storyleak, here and here, remind me of a conversation I had a few months ago with a local felony Assistant District Attorney. 

The prosecutor expressed his frustration to me that the probation department was referring all probationers to in-patient drug abuse facilities, whether the probationer had a history of substance abuse or not.  The Director of the Probation Department told the ADA that they "had to fill beds or they (the county) would lose their contract."  In other words, people who had never used drugs in their lives were being sent to prison-like drug treatment facilities, so that the County could make money.  The probation officer's paycheck relies on how many people that officer can convince the Judge to incarcerate.

This was certainly no revelation to me, but I was surprised by the Assistant DA's candor with me and that even he, a government bureaucrat, was frustrated with the criminal justice bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, Assistant DA's like him are few and far between.  There are certainly honorable peace officers, prosecutors, and probation officers who truly believe in achieving justice and serving the public.  However, the vast majority of government workers in the criminal justice system are career bureaucrats.  It is time "we the people" stopped accepting as the norm:  the law enforcement officer who feels the need to harass a housewife for not wearing her seatbelt; the prosecutor who wants to put an old man in a cage for possessing a non-government approved plant; or the probation officer who wants to make sure they get they get paid, even if it means sending an innocent person to prison.  The bureaucrat's typical cop-out responses: "I'm just doing my job," "I didn't write the laws, I just enforce them," or "that's not my problem."

If we begin shunning and calling out the ones "just doing their jobs," then the sooner the public servants can rise to the top.
]]><![CDATA[Federal Government Declares the 4th Amendment Doesn't Apply to Half of Texas]]>Sat, 10 Aug 2013 22:23:01 GMThttp://tommyvaughnlaw.com/defending-liberty-blog/federal-government-declares-the-4th-amendment-doesnt-apply-to-half-of-texasPicture
The Department of Homeland Security has declared that they have the authority to detain and search anyone without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that someone has or is engaging in criminal activity.  Read this report issued by Homeland Security where they proclaim that the 4th amendment does not apply in areas that are within 100 miles from the border or the coast.  This report also instructs Homeland Security officers that they have the authority to seize and search your computer.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees: "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."

See the above map, generated by the ACLU, which shows that all of South Texas, including San Antonio, has been declared a "Constitution Free Zone," where the Constitution no longer applies.  Remember, the Department of Homeland Security was created by the President who allegedly stated that the Constitution "is just a goddamned piece of paper."

Have you been subject to an illegal, warrantless search by Homeland Security?
]]><![CDATA[Texas Republican Politicians Support Obama's Gun-Grab]]>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:28:36 GMThttp://tommyvaughnlaw.com/defending-liberty-blog/texas-republican-politicians-support-obamas-gun-grabBy Tommy Vaughn
Although many pander to Tea-Party types and claim to be gun-toting, ten-gallon hat wearing "True Texans," the 83rd Texas legislature nearly unanimously voted to create a new law in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.  SB 1189 authorizes the police to seize any and all firearms from someone who the cop thinks is "mentally ill."  The law gives an individual cop almost complete discretion to subjectively decide whether or not someone is "mentally ill."  In fact, the law does not even require that the cop even observe anything that would lead him to believe that someone is "mentally ill."  The police can take away someone's firearms just on the basis of "a representation of a credible person."

So if I'm a liberal gun-grabber and it irks me that my neighbor has the audacity to take it upon himself the responsibility of protecting his family and property, then I can call up my good buddy, Officer 82nd Airborne, and represent any number of allegations to prove my neighbor's mentally ill.  After all he waters his lawn twice a week, rather than once, violating the law (isn't he worried about the aquifer); he drives a SUV (isn't he worried about the environment); and he homeschools his children (he must be a religious nut, or worse an individualist), surely that's proof that something is wrong upstairs.

Next thing you know, Officer 82nd Airborne, along with other "heroes" donning body armor, shields, and rifles will bust down neighbor's door and take his guns, and here's the beauty of it all, without a warrant.  The law doesn't even require that a person is accused of committing any crime at all, only that they "may be a danger to themselves or others."

This law unanimously passed the Senate and only one brave House Representative, David Simpson of Longview, voted against it.  Also supporting the law were: Bexar County District Attorney, Susan Reed; the San Antonio Police Department; the Austin Police Department; and Rick Perry.

Next time you see or hear your State Senator or Representative claim they support the 2nd Amendment, call them on their BS.
]]>