Five Unfair Practices in the Criminal Justice System (And How We Can Do Better)

No reasonable person likes crime. Most of us want to live in safe, orderly communities where people follow the law. But a truly just society also has to protect the rights of the accused. Our founders spent much of the Bill of Rights limiting government power, not expanding it.

Instead of focusing on one case or statute, this post looks at a broader question: is the system treating people fairly? Here are five unfair practices I see regularly as a criminal defense attorney in Montgomery County, and some ideas for reform.

1: Widespread Internet Posting of Mugshots

We’re supposed to presume people innocent unless they are proven guilty. Yet third-party sites scrape jail rosters and blast mugshots across Google, Facebook, and other platforms in real time. In Montgomery County, the frequently updated online jail roster makes this even worse – sites can roll out new mugshots every day. These posts often include a person’s name, address, and other personal details.

Most people charged with misdemeanors are ordinary folks: teachers, nurses, blue-collar workers, students. They don’t deserve lifelong online humiliation over a mistake, especially when the case might later be dismissed. 

Texas law and the Texas Commerce Code offer some tools to force removal after an expunction or nondisclosure, but the burden is still on the accused. We need stronger protections that keep non-violent misdemeanors off these click-bait sites in the first place.

2: One-Sided Arrest Affidavits and Police Reports

In Montgomery County, when officers want an arrest warrant, most of the time they will submit an affidavit to the District Attorney’s Office and a judge for approval. Too often, these affidavits tell only one side of the story. Officers may not interview the defendant, may skip key witnesses, or may simply omit facts that cut in favor of the accused. Information that would mitigate or even exonerate a person can be left out entirely. Judges and prosecutors are then making major decisions based on a filtered version of events.

Reform is simple: require officers to affirmatively include known exculpatory or mitigating facts in their affidavits, not just what helps establish probable cause. Create tools to hold them accountable if they don’t. 

3: Police Profiling and Pretextual Stops

Modern patrol cars are rolling computer terminals. Before ever hitting the lights, officers can run a plate, see the registered owner’s demographics and history, and decide whether this is someone they “want to talk to.” Other times, an officer will identify a “suspicious” vehicle based on nothing more than a hunch and then follow that car until a minor traffic violation inevitably occurs. That trivial violation then becomes the legal justification for the stop.

This kind of profiling erodes public trust. Clearer limits on pretextual stops and better training on bias are essential if we want communities to feel that they’re being policed fairly.

4: Officers Who Won’t Explain Themselves

Many tense encounters could be defused if officers simply explained what they were doing and why. Instead, I often see an instant hard tone, orders given without context, and citizens who feel confused and scared. Most people rarely deal with law enforcement. They know the officer has the power and they feel that imbalance. A simple explanation goes a long way. For example: “Sir, I smell alcohol, and you told me you’ve been drinking. I’m going to ask you to step out of your vehicle so I can investigate that further.” That’s very different from a shouted, “Get out of the car now.”

5: When the System Prioritizes Speed Over Justice

This is an issue that could be talked about for hours in different facets. Judges are under pressure to move dockets. That pressure filters down to prosecutors and appointed counsel. The system quietly rewards lawyers who plead cases quickly and condemns those who file motions, follow up on discovery, or set cases trials. But in criminal defense, good outcomes rarely happen fast. It takes time to investigate, negotiate, and build a defense. The prosecutors are so busy that it may take three to four court settings before a case is even on their radar. When efficiency becomes more important than the “whole truth”, people get implicitly rushed into plea deals they don’t fully understand.

If you or a loved one is facing charges in Montgomery County or the surrounding areas, you deserve a defense attorney who will push back against these unfair practices. At Alsbrooks Law, we fight for both your rights and your dignity.

Public Lewdness in Montgomery County: What You Should Know About Section 21.07 of the Texas Penal Code

It’s getting hot in here—but please, keep your clothes on. Public lewdness charges in Texas are more common than many people realize. One of the most frequent situations seen by Montgomery County criminal defense attorneys involves couples engaging in consensual sexual activity in vehicles – often in parking garages, public parks, or quiet dead-end roads.

Even when it seems like no one else is around, these encounters can still result in an arrest and criminal charges under Texas Penal Code 21.07, the statute that governs public lewdness in Texas.

What the Law Says

Under Texas Penal Code §21.07, a person commits public lewdness if they knowingly engage in certain sexual acts in a public place – or act recklessly about whether someone else might be offended or alarmed by their behavior.

Those acts include:

  • Sexual intercourse
  • Deviate sexual intercourse
  • Sexual contact

A violation is classified as a Class A misdemeanor, which can lead to up to one year in jail and fines of up to $4,000. A conviction can follow you for years, showing up on background checks and affecting your reputation.



“Public Place” Is Broader Than You Think

Many people charged with public lewdness in Montgomery County are shocked by how broadly Texas defines a “public place.”

According to Texas law, a public place is:

“Any area to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access.”

That includes obvious locations such as streets, highways, and parks – but also areas people often assume are private, including:

  • Apartment complex parking lots
  • Parking garages
  • Dead-end roads or cul-de-sacs
  • Commercial parking lots after business hours

Even being inside a vehicle with tinted windows may not protect you if law enforcement in Montgomery County believes the area qualifies as “public” or if your behavior was reckless about who might see.

The “Recklessness” Element

You can still face public lewdness charges in Texas even if you weren’t technically in a public place. The law allows prosecution if you were reckless about whether someone else could be present and offended.

This “recklessness” element gives officers wide discretion and can lead to arrests based on security cameras, nearby witnesses, or an officer’s personal observation.

Real-World Impact

A public lewdness arrest in Montgomery County can have serious personal and professional consequences beyond jail time and fines. A conviction can:

  • Appear on background checks
  • Affect employment and professional licensing
  • Damage personal relationships and reputation
  • Lead to embarrassing media or social media exposure
  • Result in court appearances, probation, and legal fees

These cases are often defensible—but only if handled strategically and quickly.

How an Experienced Montgomery County Defense Attorney Can Help

If you or someone you care about has been arrested or cited for public lewdness in Montgomery County, it’s important to speak with an attorney as soon as possible. 

An experienced criminal defense lawyer can:

  • Evaluate whether the location actually meets the “public place” definition,
  • Challenge whether “recklessness” truly applies,
  • Explore options for dismissal, diversion, reduction, or alternative resolutions,
  • Protect your reputation and record.

If you’re facing a public lewdness charge in Montgomery County, contact Alsbrooks Law for a confidential consultation. Don’t let a moment of intimacy turn into a permanent mark on your record. You have rights and we can help you protect them.

The Perils of Artificial Intelligence: When We Can’t Believe Our Senses

When “Seeing Is Believing” No Longer Applies

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the importance of camera footage in DWI cases. That remains true — but what’s also true is that “seeing is believing” no longer carries the same weight.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has brought incredible innovation, but it’s also introduced new dangers. Some of the most serious pitfalls are emerging within the criminal justice system, where people’s liberty and reputations are on the line. AI is reshaping how evidence is created, challenged, and trusted — and it’s forcing the legal system to adapt.

The Rise of AI Deepfakes

One of the most troubling developments is the rise of AI-generated deepfakes — highly realistic but completely fabricated photos, videos, and audio clips that make it increasingly difficult to tell what’s real and what isn’t.

In the early days, these fakes were often crude and easy to detect. They were mostly an online novelty – used to mimic celebrities or manipulate entertainment content. But today, deepfake technology has advanced dramatically.

Modern AI can generate video and audio so convincing that even trained experts struggle to tell the difference. What once seemed like science fiction is now a real threat to the integrity of evidence in criminal cases.

Fake “Evidence” and Real Consequences

Recent online trends have revealed fabricated police body-camera footage circulating on social media — a chilling reminder of how easily AI can manufacture fake “evidence.”

Our entire justice system depends on evidence that judges, juries, and attorneys can trust. For decades, video and photographic evidence carried immense weight in court because it was considered objective and reliable.

But what happens when AI can create footage of a person committing a crime they didn’t commit — or alter real footage to change what actually happened? The very foundation of that trust is shaken.

Public Trust and the Danger of Manipulated Reality

Public trust in government institutions is already fragile. Many Americans question whether agencies and officials act fairly or transparently. The rise of AI-generated content threatens to deepen that skepticism.

Without safeguards, manipulated evidence could erode confidence not only in law enforcement but in the courts themselves. To maintain legitimacy, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors must adopt clear policies on how technology is used to collect, analyze, and present digital evidence.

Transparency, accountability, and independent oversight will be critical.

Protecting Integrity: The Need for Strong Safeguards

Chain of custody, verification processes, and independent forensic review are no longer optional — they are essential. Every digital file, image, or video used in court must be verified as authentic and untampered.

Agencies must document their handling of evidence from start to finish. Courts must demand proof that what they are being shown is real.

Only then can we preserve the credibility of justice in an era where AI can so easily deceive.

How Defense Attorneys Must Adapt

For defense attorneys, this new landscape demands a shift in how we approach evidence. It is no longer enough to simply review what prosecutors hand over. We must be prepared to dig deeper — into metadata, source information, and digital fingerprints — to uncover whether a piece of evidence has been manipulated.

Understanding how AI tools work, and how they can be abused, is now essential to protecting a client’s constitutional rights.

Defense teams will increasingly rely on forensic experts, cybersecurity professionals, and advanced technology of their own to challenge questionable evidence. Just as law enforcement adapts to verify what they present, defense counsel must evolve to expose what’s false.

The Legal Minefield Ahead

The rise of AI deepfakes is both a technological accomplishment and a legal minefield. It challenges one of humanity’s oldest instincts – to trust what we see and hear – and forces the justice system to evolve faster than ever before.

History has proven that the government can use technology for both justice and injustice. Without vigilance, the same tools designed to help protect the public can also be used to destroy innocent lives.

The law must adapt — and so must those sworn to uphold it.

AI, Predictive Policing, and the Constitution: Where the Law Is Headed

Why Algorithms Raise Old Questions in New Clothes

The old school police mindset is that they need to heavily patrol bad neighborhoods. The new school reformist mindset is that there are more arrests and ill-will in these neighborhoods specifically because they’re so heavily policed in the first place. 

Artificial intelligence is already weighing into this tension, shaping criminal investigations, from “predictive” patrol maps to automated content-scanning and pattern-of-life analytics. The constitutional question isn’t whether technology can help police, it’s how far it can go before it collides with the Fourth Amendment and due process. 

The very important, fundamental guiding principle, drawn from decades of search-and-seizure law, is simple: probable cause must rest on a concrete nexus to the specific facts of a case, not on broad generalizations about how criminals behave or what an algorithm usually predicts.

What Is Predictive Policing?

Predictive tools analyze historical data, arrests, calls for service, locations, or social graphs, to forecast where or who is “high risk.” This can influence everything from where officers patrol to who gets stopped, questioned, or surveilled. Useful? Potentially. Constitutionally sufficient for probable cause? Not by itself. 

A statistical risk score or heat map is, at best, just a lead. To justify an intrusive search or arrest, police still need individualized facts that tie a person, device, or place to a specific suspected offense.

Probable Cause Demands Particularized Facts

The Supreme Court has long warned against “general warrants.” In practice, that’s why modern digital warrants must be particular about what’s being searched and supported by a nexus, as in why this device/account/place likely holds evidence of this crime. 

Courts reject boilerplate assertions like “criminals use phones” or “drug dealers text.” Likewise, “the model flagged this area” or “the AI says this account is suspicious” cannot substitute for case-specific facts.

The Texas Lens: Stocker, Baldwin, and the Nexus Requirement

The use of AI and predictive policing is strongly analogous to Texas case law on warrant specificity. Texas courts have recently sharpened the “nexus” conversation in digital searches. In State v. Baldwin, the Court of Criminal Appeals criticized affidavits that rely on generic claims about cell-phone use among criminals, emphasizing the need for specific facts connecting a phone to the offense. 

Later, in Stocker v. State, the same court clarified that while a nexus is required, lower courts shouldn’t impose a wooden rule that an affidavit always must show the phone was used during, before, or after the crime; other specific facts may suffice. 

In other words, no boilerplate, but also no hyper-technical checklist, just a grounded, fact-driven connection between device and offense.

Applying Those Lessons to AI and Predictive Analytics

If an officer points to an algorithmic output, let’s say, a predictive “hot zone,” a risk score, or an AI match, the constitutional question mirrors Stocker/Baldwin’s nexus analysis:

Does the affidavit explain, in concrete terms, how the output relates to this suspect and this crime? Are there independent, particularized facts (observations, corroborated tips, timestamps, geolocation records, surveillance video) that link the target to criminal activity beyond “the model says so”? Is the requested search narrowly tailored (place to be searched, items to be seized), or is it a sweeping fishing expedition justified by a statistical hunch?

Probable Cause vs. Predictive “Hunches”

I think courts are likely to treat algorithmic signals like informant tips: they can initiate investigation, but they need strong corroboration. A heat map doesn’t equal reasonable suspicion of a particular person. A “network risk” score for an account doesn’t, by itself, justify rummaging through a phone. Just as warrant applications must avoid boilerplate language; AI-influenced applications must avoid algorithmic boilerplate (“the model flags this device”). 

The affidavit should spell out why the tool’s output matters here – time, location, behavior matching the tip, independent observations, and links to the victim or scene.

Due Process, Confrontation, and the Black Box

Even when a warrant is obtained, due process questions will hang over the government’s head. If AI or predictive analytics produce pivotal evidence (e.g., automated content detection, pattern matching), defendants may argue for disclosure sufficient to test reliability under evidentiary standards (Kelly/Daubert analogs). Where out-of-court machine classifications are offered substantively, Confrontation Clause arguments can surface if a human witness can’t meaningfully explain the basis of the machine’s “statement.” Expect litigation over access to training data, error rates, false positive handling, and validation studies. My hope is that Texas prosecutors will be very cautious and conservative about the use of such non-specific analytics. 

Practical Drafting Guide for Law Enforcement (and What Defense Should Look For)

For prosecutors and affiants, the most defensible AI-influenced warrant affidavits will:

  • Identify the specific tool used and what it outputs (not just “AI flagged”).
  • Explain why the output is probative in this case (timestamps, geospatial match to crime window, consistent behavior, corroborating witness statements).
  • Limit the search to particular data likely to contain evidence (e.g., messages between specified dates, location data around the incident), rather than a full scrape.

For defense attorneys, red flags include:

  • Conclusory statements and assertions that “AI indicates” criminality without case-specific linkage.
  • Overbroad data grabs lacking temporal or content limits.
  • Failure to disclose error rates/validation where a tool’s reliability is central.
  • Affidavits that rest on predictive labels instead of observed facts.


Geofence, Keyword, and Network Warrants: The Next Flashpoints

Bulk digital warrants, geofences around a crime scene, keyword searches, mass “similar-photo” matches, all raise heightened particularity concerns. 

The safest path for the State is to stage these requests (narrow first, then expand with new facts), minimize innocent-user data, and tie each step to fresh, individualized facts. 

Defense attorneys  should press for segmentation, minimization, and suppression if the warrant jumps from broad analytics to intrusive searches without a clear nexus.

What This All Means for Texans Right Now

Whether we like it or not, the times are changing fast with the rise of AI. In Montgomery County and across Texas, judges will recognize the promise of technology but apply the same constitutional touchstones they use for phones and cloud accounts: particularity and nexus. Stocker’s message isn’t that anything goes; it’s that courts must read affidavits holistically for specific, non-boilerplate facts that connect the target to the crime. 

That same lens should govern AI and predictive policing: analytics can inform but not replace the individualized showing the Fourth Amendment requires. 

The Next Frontier of Fourth Amendment Law: A Dimming Line Between Private Companies and Government Agents

Government action, and inevitable government overreach, almost always starts with an admirable goal. 

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the most important protections in American law. It shields people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, even when the government thinks it is acting righteously. The 4th Amendment requires that law enforcement obtain warrants based on probable cause before invading our privacy. 

But in the digital age, a new and complex question is emerging:

What happens when private companies act like government agents?

In recent years, law enforcement has partnered, sometimes openly, and sometimes indirectly or in secret, with major tech companies like Discord, Google, and others to combat illegal pornography, human trafficking, and other serious crimes. Sometimes, the tech companies have outright lied about these transactions and partnerships. 

These platforms use sophisticated proprietary software and artificial intelligence tools to scan user data, detect potentially illegal content, and flag it for authorities. 

On the surface, this seems like a straightforward good: dangerous offenders are caught, and vulnerable victims are protected. But beneath that surface is a significant constitutional question. The Fourth Amendment only limits government conduct, not that of private companies. 

If a company searches your messages on its own and turns them over to police, courts have long held that no Fourth Amendment violation has occurred. 

The potential new frontier the courts will have to carefully consider arises when those companies aren’t acting entirely on their own. If a company is scanning content at the government’s request, at the government’s mandate, or using software developed for government purposes, it may cross the line from “private party” to acting as a government agent, and that changes everything in a 4th Amendment analysis.

Defense attorneys across the country are beginning to challenge these practices. If a private company is effectively doing the government’s work, using tools created for law enforcement or following government directives, then the Fourth Amendment should apply. That means searches done without a warrant could be ruled unconstitutional, and any evidence gathered could be excluded and suppressed. 

Courts are only starting to grapple with these questions, but the legal landscape is shifting.

The rise of artificial intelligence powered scanning tools makes the issue even more complicated. 

Many platforms now use automated systems that analyze billions of messages, photos, and files. If the government designed or directed those tools, or even provided incentives for their use, a strong argument can be made that these scans are government searches. Because these searches are often broad, warrantless, and indiscriminate, they raise serious constitutional concerns.

For people accused of crimes involving digital evidence, this evolving area of law could become a critical part of their defense. If evidence was discovered through a warrantless search conducted by a company acting as a government agent, an attorney could potentially challenge its admissibility under the Fourth Amendment. In some cases, that could mean the difference between conviction and dismissal.

The future of search and seizure law is evolving as fast as technology itself. Courts, prosecutors, and defense lawyers are all working to define the boundaries of privacy and government power in a world where private companies play a major role in law enforcement efforts.

Can I Still Be Charged in Montgomery County If the Victim Doesn’t Want to Press Charges?

One of the most common questions people facing assault charges in Texas ask is: “Can the State still prosecute me if the victim doesn’t want to press charges?” 

The short answer is yes, and understanding why is important. An uncooperative or recanting victim is not a “golden bullet” that automatically ends a criminal case.

1. The System is Designed to Stop Domestic Violence

Prosecutors have tools and strategies that allow them to move forward even without the victim’s help.

The criminal justice system in assault cases, especially those involving domestic violence, is designed to protect victims — even from themselves. 

Lawmakers and prosecutors know that in many abusive relationships, victims initially report abuse but later recant, minimize, or refuse to cooperate because of fear, financial dependence, or emotional ties.

2. Evidence Based Prosecution

To address that cycle, prosecutors are trained and encouraged to continue pursuing cases even when the alleged victim changes their story.

Unfortunately, that one-size-fits-all approach can sweep up people who are not domestic abusers at all, but are instead facing more routine, non-cyclical accusations. 

When the District Attorney’s Office lacks victim cooperation, they often turn to a strategy called evidence-based prosecution. This means they try to build the case using other forms of evidence collected from the scene, such as 911 recordings, photos of injuries, body camera or dashcam video, statements made by the accused or witnesses, and even the victim’s initial statements before they stopped cooperating.

Prosecutors also receive extensive training on hearsay exceptions, the Confrontation Clause, and key cases like Crawford v. Washington. These legal strategies help them find ways to use out-of-court statements and other indirect evidence at trial, even when the victim is unavailable or unwilling to testify.

3. Complainants Can Still Help the Accused

That said, there are still situations where a lack of victim cooperation can significantly weaken the State’s case. If there’s little or no physical evidence, no third-party witnesses, or ambiguity about what actually happened during the incident, prosecutors may struggle to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt without the victim’s testimony. 

Delayed reports, where days or weeks pass before the allegation is made, can also leave prosecutors with far less evidence to work with.

It’s also true that most prosecutors will consider the victim’s wishes as part of their decision-making. While a victim’s preference is not the deciding factor, it can be a “soft factor” that influences whether charges move forward or how the case is resolved. For example, a victim’s wishes may be one of the factors considered by a prosecutor if they offer a dismissal, a reduced charge, or some other varied plea agreement.

The bottom line is this: even if the alleged victim doesn’t want to press charges, you can still be prosecuted for assault in Texas. Prosecutors in Montgomery County and across the state pursue these cases aggressively, especially where domestic violence is suspected. That’s why it’s so important to speak with an experienced Montgomery County criminal defense attorney as early as possible. A skilled lawyer can evaluate the strength of the State’s evidence, project if and how the state may admit certain evidence at trial, or even challenge improper use of certain statements, fighting to protect your rights at every stage of the case.

If you’re facing assault charges, even if the other person wants the case dropped, contact Alsbrooks Law today. 

What Happens in Montgomery County After an Arrest?

Montgomery County is known as one of the toughest criminal justice jurisdictions in Texas. If you or someone you love has been arrested here, understanding what happens next can make an overwhelming situation feel a little more manageable.

The Arrest: Warrant or Instanter

This guide walks you step-by-step through what to expect from the moment of arrest to your first court date.

Most arrests in Texas happen one of two ways: either a police officer makes what’s called an instanter arrest under Article 14.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, meaning they arrest someone on the spot based on probable cause, or a judge signs a warrant authorizing the arrest after finding probable cause that a crime was committed. Either way, once an arrest occurs in Montgomery County, the next stop is almost always the Montgomery County Jail, located at #1 Criminal Justice Drive in Conroe, Texas. There are satellite jails around the county, but they’re usually just temporary silos until transport to Conroe.

Jail Intake: The First Stop After Arrest

The jail intake process can last several hours and is often the most uncomfortable part of the experience.

Inmates are typically strip-searched, placed in holding cells without benches, beds, restrooms, or temperature control, and must wait to be processed. It’s also common for mugshots to be posted online by outlets like the Montgomery County Police Reporter soon after intake. If you know a warrant is active and you plan to turn yourself in, you can make the process smoother. Contacting a reputable bail bond company in advance can often speed up intake and help you bond out quickly.

Probable Cause Court: The Morning After Arrest

Usually the morning after an instanter arrest, you’ll appear before a magistrate for what’s known as probable cause court under Article 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The magistrate, a prosecutor, a public defender, and other inmates will be present. Don’t expect much advocacy on the part of the public defender or the judge on your behalf in Montgomery County. Cases are not litigated at probable cause court; probable cause court is just about whether there is an initial, reasonable basis for the charge. 

During this hearing, the charges are read aloud in open court, the magistrate decides whether there is enough evidence for the case to proceed, and a bond amount is set. If the accused believes the bond is too high, they can request a review by a different magistrate the next morning. 

In some cases, particularly those involving alleged mental illness or intellectual disability, the magistrate must follow special procedures under Articles 16.22 and 17.032. 

The court may also impose bond conditions or protective orders depending on the situation.

Your First Court Date

If you bond out of jail, you’ll receive an initial court date called an arraignment. If you remain in custody, the court will still set an arraignment date, and you’ll be transported from jail when the time comes for your court date. Alsbrooks Law has provided another summary blog article about what to expect at your first court date. 

Hiring an experienced Montgomery County criminal defense attorney is a critical step in building your strongest possible defense. Someone who understands the local courts, the prosecutors, and the conventions and norms in Montgomery County can make a major difference in the outcome of your case.

Being arrested in Montgomery County is stressful, but knowing what to expect can help you stay calm and make smart decisions. 

Dash and Body Cam Footage: Crucial DWI Defense Tools

In Texas, a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) charge is a stressful life event, but there is hope if you’re charged in Montgomery County or elsewhere. To secure a conviction, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you either lost the normal use of your mental faculties, lost the normal use of your physical faculties, or had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher at the time of driving.

But what happens when there is no blood or breath test? In those cases without a scientific test, the prosecution must rely almost exclusively on video evidence to prove loss of normal mental or physical faculties. 

In cases without a blood or breath test, and even in cases with such a test, dash camera and body camera footage can become the backbone of the government’s case. Without quality or reliable video indicating intoxication, government lawyers may struggle to convince a jury.

Dash Camera Footage: Was the Stop Legal?

The first critical piece of evidence is usually the dash cam video from the officer’s patrol car. This footage captures the initial traffic stop and the suspect’s driving behavior. Was the driver swerving, or failing to signal, or committing some kind of verified traffic violation, or was the stop based on something less clear? 

A thorough review of dash cam footage can uncover whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, or whether the officer made a hasty judgment. If the stop itself was improper, the entire case may collapse.

Body Camera Footage: Signs of Sobriety or Signs of Bias?

Body-worn cameras tell the rest of the story. This footage shows the interaction between the officer and the accused, how questions were asked, how instructions were given, and how the driver responded.

Often, bodycam footage reveals signs of sobriety:

  • Clear, coherent answers to questions
  • Cooperation with officers
  • Calm demeanor and responsiveness

In other cases, the video may expose problems with the investigation itself. Were the standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) explained clearly and fairly? Were they administered in a fair way and under fair conditions? Did the officer grade the tests objectively, or did bias creep into the evaluation? Small mistakes in administering SFSTs can lead to unreliable results, something that may not come across in written reports but is obvious on video.

Blood Draw Video: Were Protocols Followed?

In some DWI cases, law enforcement records the blood draw process. Reviewing this footage is critical. The defense can analyze whether the draw was done in a sanitary environment, using proper techniques, and in compliance with medical protocols. If shortcuts were taken, the reliability of the blood evidence can be challenged in court.

Why Video Matters for Clients

Let’s face it: sometimes people drink more than they should. For clients, video can be an eye-opener. Reviewing bodycam or dash cam footage together with an attorney helps clarify what happened and guides the decision on whether to take a case to trial. 

In today’s world where technology is so easily integrated into our lives, juries expect to see what actually happened – not just to rely on an officer’s testimony.

Choose a Lawyer Who Reviews Video With You

Not all defense attorneys make video review a priority. Some avoid watching it with their clients. Some stuff the client into an office to review video without a lawyer. At Alsbrooks Law, we believe this is a mistake. Every second of footage matters. I will sit down with our clients and carefully examine the videos, looking for inconsistencies, signs of sobriety, or errors by the officers. This careful and caretaking approach can make the difference between a conviction and a dismissal.

Protect Your Rights in Montgomery County

If you’ve been arrested for DWI in Conroe or anywhere in Montgomery County, you need an attorney who understands how to use video evidence to your advantage. At Alsbrooks Law, we fight for our clients with a detailed, evidence-based defense that puts the prosecution’s case under the microscope.

Call Alsbrooks Law today to schedule a consultation. 

The Hidden Costs of a Montgomery County DWI

When most Texans think about the consequences of a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrest, their first worry is often jail time. While your freedom is certainly important, the reality for most first-time offenders in Montgomery County is that a DWI in Texas ends up hitting your pocketbook harder than your liberty. Most first-time Texas DWI offenders are able to avoid jail time, and anyone telling you differently is just trying to scare you. 

In Montgomery County and across the state, the financial ripple effects of a DWI conviction can last for years.

The Statutory Fine Is Just the Beginning

Under Texas law, a first-time DWI is a Class “B” misdemeanor punishable by up to a $2,000 fine, up to 180 days in jail, or both. But in practice, the actual costs usually go far beyond the statutory fine. 

Montgomery County prosecutors once took a more humane approach with respect to money. Misdemeanor court was not about making money punitive, but instead about securing accountability through convictions. 

As of 2025, at the time of this writing, prosecutors in Montgomery County have recently started to drive a harder bargain on fines. A statutory criminal penalty fine is negotiable, but these fines are rarely the full story.

State Traffic Fines Add Thousands

In 2019, Texas eliminated the old “driver responsibility surcharges,” but replaced them with a state traffic fine regimen. For a first-time DWI, that means a mandatory $3,000 fine. A second conviction within 36 months adds another $4,500, and in any case, if your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .15 or higher, you face an automatic $6,000 traffic fine. These assessments are separate from the previously mentioned court-imposed criminal penalty fine, and can’t be negotiated or ignored.

Probation Isn’t Free

Many first-time offenders may be tempted to avoid the state traffic fine and a driver’s license suspension by accepting probation instead of a fine-only conviction plea deal. But, in addition to being burdensome and oppressive, Montgomery County probation carries its own hidden costs, including:

  • Monthly probation supervision fees
  • Ignition interlock device installation and calibration (often $70–$150 per month)
  • Court-ordered DWI education courses
  • Mandatory community service and court costs

Over the course of a year or more on probation, these expenses add up quickly

Insurance Premiums and SR-22

Another overlooked cost of a DWI is the impact on your car insurance. Texas requires drivers convicted of DWI, or those seeking an occupational license, to file an SR-22 supplemental insurance policy. Many insurance carriers raise premiums substantially after a DWI, while others may decline to renew your coverage at all. Some drivers are forced to buy SR-22 coverage through secondary carriers at much higher rates.

These increases can last for three years or more, adding thousands to the overall cost of a single conviction.

The Value of a Skilled Defense Attorney

When you add up fines, probation expenses, insurance premiums, and court costs, the true price of a DWI often reaches well into five figures. 

That’s why one of the most cost-effective decisions you can make is to hire a qualified DWI defense attorney. There is hope if you’re charged with a criminal offense, even in Montgomery County. At Alsbrooks Law, we help clients in Montgomery County, Conroe, and throughout Texas navigate the criminal process while minimizing financial fallout. 

A skilled defense lawyer can:

  • Review and challenge the evidence in your case
  • Fight improper stops, searches, or testing errors
  • Negotiate for reduced fines or probation terms
  • Help you anticipate and manage license and insurance challenges

Protect Your Future

The hidden costs of a Texas DWI can follow you long after your court dates. But with the right defense strategy, you can protect not only your freedom, but also your financial stability.

If you’ve been arrested for DWI in Montgomery County, call Alsbrooks Law today. We’ll fight for your rights and help you make smart legal decisions to move forward.

A Secret Weapon Many Defense Attorneys Overlook: Lange v. California

When defending clients against unlawful police searches and seizures, one recent U.S. Supreme Court case stands out to me as both influential and underutilized – Lange v. California (2021). I don’t think the defense bar is fully leveraging its implications in the courtroom.

What Happened in Lange v. California?

The case began when a California Highway Patrol officer observed a driver, Arthur Gregory Lange, playing loud music and honking his horn multiple times for no apparent reason. The officer decided to follow Lange, eventually activating his overhead lights to initiate a stop. Lange, however, did not stop, and instead drove into his own driveway and entered his garage. The officer followed him inside, interrupting the garage door as it closed, and ultimately arrested him for traffic-related offenses.

Lange challenged the officer’s warrantless entry, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. Prosecutors argued the officer was in “hot pursuit” of a misdemeanor suspect, which they claimed created an “exigent circumstance” justifying entry without a warrant.

The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the majority, held that police pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not automatically justify a warrantless home entry. 

Instead, courts must examine the circumstances on a case by case basis to determine whether true exigency exists, such as imminent harm, or destruction of evidence. 

Why This Matters for Texas Criminal Defense

The Court’s ruling reinforces a cornerstone principle that your home is your castle. The government cannot intrude without proper authority, and suspected misdemeanors do not create a blanket excuse for officers to enter without a warrant.

Alsbrooks Law recently used this case to protect a client right here in Montgomery County. Police officers, investigating misdemeanor reckless driving allegations, skipped the front door, intruded through a closed gate, and then entered directly into our client’s detached garage without a warrant. 

The client was eventually charged with resisting arrest and felony Driving While Intoxicated. However, the supposed offense under investigation at the time of their entry, reckless driving, was only a misdemeanor. 

By invoking Lange v. California, we successfully argued that the officers’ actions violated the Fourth Amendment, leading to the dismissal of felony DWI and resisting arrest charges.

Why So Few Attorneys Use Lange v. California

Despite its importance, many defense attorneys overlook Lange. Some rely too heavily on outdated precedents, while others fail to connect the ruling to local cases involving DWI, resisting arrest, or low-level misdemeanors. This creates a missed opportunity to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence and secure dismissals or reductions for clients.

Alsbrooks Law: Protecting Your Rights in Montgomery County

At Alsbrooks Law, we treat the Constitution as more than words on paper. It is the shield that protects our clients from government overreach. Lange v. California is a recent and powerful tool in the arsenal. 

Call Alsbrooks Law today to schedule your consultation. We will ensure your rights aren’t trampled by overzealous and intruding police officers.