what does the state have to show?

[kaboom]

What is the name of your state?TEXASI was driving a friends car when I was pulled over. I told the cops I left my wallet at home but I knew the d.l.number and all information on it. He then demanded I get out of the car. I gave him all my info and he proceded to vehemently asked for my d.l. Once again I politely apologized and told him I left it at home. He said hold on he then, to my dismay went to the car and took a bag out of it and started going thru it. To which I expressed that I protest to anything in the car being searched. I then asked if I was being arrested or detained. He then told the other cop to put me in the back of the car. He got in the front and proceded to go thru bag. He found drugs in the bag he then had the other cop pull me out of the car and handcuff me. The contents of the car are not mine and I know the were not in plain veiw because they were in a bag inside of another bag. I have no prior criminal history. My attorney says they probably wont be able to produce a tape and that they will try and say they arrested me for running a red light and then searched the car. In light of that I did some research. I ran an ad in the paper and posted a sign at the store across the streeet. Out of that I'm able to provide two witnesses that saw the chain of events. Im curious what does burden of proof mean in my case?

 

[Kane]

In a motion to suppress evidence, the initial burden is on the defendant, to establish the search was not conducted pursuant to a warrant. If that is established, the burden shifts to the state to show that it was reasonable.

At trial, the state has the burden of proving every element of the offense.

 

[RedemptionMan]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaa You don't mess with Texas!!!!!!!

hope you have you one hella of an attonery----

 

[stephenk]

since the car doesn't belong to you and you had no identification on you, the police could search the car.

 

[kaboom]

I'm confused just because it was my friends car and I had no d.l on me hardly justifys probable cause. Please explain.

 

[RedemptionMan]

technically if you had all your information then they would have had to call a K9 into the scene and only search your vehicle if the dog hit on the car.

without a D.L. and no documentation on the car they are going to say that they proceeded with a felony traffic stop at that point cause the car could have been stolen.....A reasonable probable cause is all they need and it is what is reasonable to the officer in his opinion. after all you are the one who broke the law...

 

[justalayman]

technically if you had all your information then they would have had to call a K9 into the scene and only search your vehicle if the dog hit on the car.

QUOTE]


I believe a recent SCOTUS decision ruled this improper without cause

 

[kaboom]

It is not a crime in Texas to not show your drivers license, it is a crime if you do not offer your name and birthdate. After running the plate it is obvious the car was not stolen.

 

[RedemptionMan]

It is not a crime in Texas to not show your drivers license, it is a crime if you do not offer your name and birthdate. After running the plate it is obvious the car was not stolen.

They detained him in the back of a patrol car looking for a crime. Unless they did not read you your rights then there is not much you could say. It is hard to use a probable cause defense on a drug case since they could say they smelled it, or they discovered a suspicious looking blah blah blah in your window.... If you think it is easy to argue that defense in court with the officers present you have another thing coming... and just how many officers showed up ? 3 -4 or 5 maybe 6????

 

[kaboom]

He didn't read me my rights until we arrived at the jail. Texas has ruled that smell anhd gut feelings doesnt justify probable cause. There were 2 officers and 1 arrived after I was under arrest, so 3 total

 

[justalayman]

It is not a crime in Texas to not show your drivers license, it is a crime if you do not offer your name and birthdate. After running the plate it is obvious the car was not stolen.

§ 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON
DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a
license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a
motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the
type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate,
court officer, or peace officer.


What was that you said?

 

[RedemptionMan]

He didn't read me my rights until we arrived at the jail. Texas has ruled that smell anhd gut feelings doesnt justify probable cause. There were 2 officers and 1 arrived after I was under arrest, so 3 total

well rest assured that the two officers that were there with you will be in court with you. Did they ask you a lot of questions before they read you your rights?

 

[kaboom]

http://www.svpvril.com/drilic.html Having a drivers license is not a law.You will understand after you go to the web page above. The only question I answered pertained to who I am and to deny ownership of the contents of the car. After that I exersized my constitutional right to remain silent.

 

[RedemptionMan]

your lawyer will focus on the points of law that he wants to argue in order to help your cause. The contents of the car is what got you into trouble -- I would suggest to find a better group of people to run around with......

 

[kaboom]

Yes thats what I hired him for. Other than what has been disscussed, I still am unable to find probable cause?