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.

Lawyers and ChatGPT: Important Ethical Considerations in Criminal Practice

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are changing industries, and the practice of criminal law is no exception. Many lawyers are experimenting with these technologies to innovate and streamline their practice.

What is Chat GPT?

Artificial intelligence comes in many different forms, but it’s important to look at some definitions from the outset:

Generative – The AI generates or creates text rather than just analyzing or classifying it.

Pre-trained – The AI model is trained on massive amounts of text data before being fine-tuned for specific tasks.

Transformer – Refers to the underlying neural network architecture that enables the model to handle long sequences of text and understand context effectively.

AI can offer efficiency and convenience in the hands of someone who knows how to harness it, but it can also raise serious ethical questions. For attorneys, understanding the limits and risks of ChatGPT is essential for compliance with professional standards.

I’m going to touch on two of the most pressing ethical considerations for criminal defense attorneys: (1) – competence and diligence, and (2) – the duty to protect client confidentiality.

Competent and Diligent Representation

The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to provide competent and diligent representation to every client. Competence in today’s world includes a working knowledge of technology. This means that lawyers who choose to use tools like ChatGPT must not only understand the benefits of such technology, but also the technology’s limitations.

One of the biggest concerns when using ChatGPT is accuracy. ChatGPT has been known to generate false information, including fabricated case citations. In fact, several recent news stories have highlighted lawyers who relied on AI-generated briefs that contained nonexistent authorities, leading to embarrassment, sanctions, and disciplinary action.

For that reason, any lawyer using ChatGPT must carefully verify all outputs. AI may provide a helpful first draft, but it is never a substitute for independent legal research and judgment. Failing to check sources could fall short of the duty of diligence and expose a lawyer to ethical complaints. In short, ChatGPT can be a valuable tool for brainstorming, outlining, or simplifying concepts, but it cannot replace and should never replace the attorney’s core responsibility of exercising independent legal skill, analysis, and judgment on behalf of clients.

Client Confidentiality

Perhaps the most critical issue in the ethical practice of criminal law in Texas is confidentiality. The attorney-client privilege and client confidentiality are very important cornerstones of the legal profession. Lawyers are strictly prohibited from disclosing client communications without authorization.

Here’s where ChatGPT poses a unique risk for criminal defense lawyers – most platforms store or process the prompts and inputs users provide. If a lawyer were to paste sensitive client information into the system, that information could be retained by third-party servers outside the lawyer’s control. Even if not intentionally disclosed, the mere risk of exposure could represent a breach of the lawyer’s ethical duty. Criminal defense attorneys must exercise extreme caution.

Best practices include:

-Never input names, case numbers, or sensitive facts into ChatGPT or similar AI tools.

-Use the platform only for generalized, non-confidential tasks such as summarizing publicly available law.

-Stay informed about the terms of service and data policies of any AI platform before using it in practice.

By respecting these boundaries, lawyers can avoid breaches of confidentiality while still making limited and smart use of AI.

ChatGPT and similar AI platforms are undoubtedly powerful tools. Used responsibly, ChatGPT can enhance efficiency and help lawyers better serve their clients. Used carelessly, AI can create serious risks for both the lawyer and the client. Criminal defense attorneys in Texas have to maintain awareness of its limitations and boundaries.

How Domestic Violence Pleas in Texas Impact Your Federal Firearm Rights

When you’re facing charges for domestic violence in Texas, you must be extremely careful if you’re negotiating a plea bargain. A plea bargain might seem like your best option if the government’s case is strong, but you need to make sure you’re considering all the collateral consequences that come with this type of charge.

The long-term consequences and implications of accepting a plea in these cases can be severe and permanent, particularly regarding your firearm rights under both Texas and federal law. Before you accept any plea agreement, it’s essential to thoroughly analyze the evidence against you, and carefully weigh all your options with your criminal defense attorney.

Texas Domestic Violence Pleas: Lifelong Consequences

In Texas, pleading guilty or no contest to a domestic violence charge has lasting ramifications.

Unlike many other offenses, domestic violence charges typically cannot be easily expunged or nondisclosed. Even in cases involving Class C deferred adjudication, which may sometimes be eligible for expunction, a domestic violence related plea could permanently affect your firearm rights under federal law. Simply put, accepting a plea, even a seemingly minor one, can have lifelong consequences when it comes to weapon ownership.

Texas vs. Federal Firearm Laws

Both Texas state and federal laws address firearm possession following a domestic violence conviction, but they differ significantly in scope:

Under Texas law, individuals convicted of a Class A misdemeanor involving family violence lose the right to possess a firearm. However, Texas law allows reinstatement of firearm rights five years after the completion of a sentence, probation, or parole. While this provides some hope for restoration, it applies only under state law, and does not override federal restrictions.

Federal law is significantly more restrictive. Under federal statute, specifically Title 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33) and (37), a conviction for a “qualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” permanently prohibits you from possessing, receiving, or transporting firearms or ammunition. This federal prohibition applies regardless of the Texas five-year restoration rule and lasts indefinitely.

What Qualifies as a Domestic Violence Crime Under Federal Law?

It’s critical to understand that under federal law, your crime does not need to explicitly include the words “domestic violence” or “family violence” to trigger these restrictions. Under Texas law, your lawyer may be able to negotiate an advantageous removal of a family violence tag, but this won’t help you in the context of federal firearm rules. Instead, federal statutes look at the specific conduct involved. A conviction qualifies if it includes elements such as the use or attempted use of physical force against a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, parent of your child, or a similar domestic relationship. This means even if your attorney successfully negotiates to remove or omit the “family violence” label from your plea, you may still fall under the federal firearms prohibition if the underlying conduct meets federal criteria.

False Allegations and Aggressive Defense

Domestic violence allegations are stressful and challenging for everyone involved, and unfortunately, false accusations, self-defense scenarios, and even property defense scenarios, do routinely occur. Government offices have systems in place to aggressively use state power in defense of victims, but the real world isn’t always so black and white as systems envision.

Because of the severe consequences associated with domestic violence convictions, including permanent loss of firearm rights, you must mount a purposeful and an aggressive defense from the outset. Never agree to a plea bargain without comprehensive advice from an experienced criminal defense lawyer who understands the nuances of both Texas and federal firearms law.

Protecting Your Rights with Alsbrooks Law

At Alsbrooks Law, we recognize the gravity of domestic violence charges and their lasting impacts on your life. We will evaluate your case, analyze the strength of the evidence against you, project your possible outcomes should the case proceed to trial, and ensure you fully understand your options and potential consequences.

Montgomery County Dog Search Law: What Pettit v. State Means for Passenger Rights

I’ll just come right out and say it – I love working on and reviewing K-9 dog sniff cases. I helped to write Law for the Dog during my time as a prosecutor. I just love dogs. So, one of the most interesting court decisions of 2025, in my opinion, came down from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Pettit v. State.

This Petit case represents a significant development in Texas search and seizure law. The central issue in Pettit was whether a passenger in a vehicle has standing to challenge a vehicle search that occurred after an allegedly unreasonably prolonged detention. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said yes, that passenger does have standing to challenge, just like the driver would.

The Facts: A Stop That Turned Into a Standoff

The facts in Pettit aren’t especially complicated but they’ll be familiar to those on the front lines battling the government in court.

A DPS trooper in Smith County pulled over a vehicle for speeding, an expired tag, and a busted brake light. The driver didn’t have a license, and the passenger, Mr. Pettit, was visibly nervous, and admitted to the trooper he was on probation. The trooper called for a K-9 unit, which didn’t arrive until nearly an hour later. Only then did a search occur, based on the dog’s alert. That search uncovered prescription pills, syringes, and a sawed-off shotgun, which led to charges against Pettit.

Before trial, Pettit filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court granted it, ruling that the extended detention violated Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), which held that law enforcement cannot prolong a stop beyond its original purpose without additional reasonable suspicion.

The State appealed, arguing that Pettit lacked standing to challenge the search because he didn’t own the car.

The Legal Question: Can a Passenger Challenge the Search?

Texas courts have historically been cautious when passengers challenge vehicle searches. The State leaned heavily on Lewis v. State, arguing that since Pettit had no privacy interest in the vehicle itself, he couldn’t challenge the search. The court of appeals agreed.

But the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that Pettit’s right to be free from an unreasonably prolonged detention gave him standing to challenge the fruits of that illegal detention, namely, the search. In other words, the state, and the court of appeals, were focused just on the search itself, but the Court of Criminal Appeals considered the issue more broadly, the detention before the search, and said Petit’s rights were violated. This decision echoes and clarifies previous holdings in Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), and Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), both of which emphasize that a passenger is seized during a traffic stop and retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being detained beyond what is necessary for the stop’s purpose.

At Alsbrooks Law, I am passionate about defending citizens against unlawful searches, detentions, and prosecutions. If you were stopped, searched, or charged based on a roadside K-9 sniff, you need a lawyer who understands both the law, and law enforcement tactics. If your case involves a dog search, call us for a free consultation today.

Criminal Trespass Charges in Montgomery County

Common Situations That Lead to Criminal Trespass Charges in Montgomery County

Criminal trespass in Montgomery County can take many different forms. Perhaps the most trivial use of this statute comes into play when law enforcement officers repeatedly arrest homeless individuals who aren’t really doing anything wrong.

There are more serious scenarios like unauthorized entry into buildings or onto land that generally anger the public, but even a relatively minor, simple dispute at a business could escalate into a criminal trespass charge.

Criminal Trespass Incidents in The Woodlands Waterway District

One hotspot in Montgomery County is businesses in The Woodlands waterway district. If there is a dispute, business owners will very quickly summon security and ask involved patrons to leave. If you don’t leave immediately, they won’t hesitate to call the police.

Here is the bottom line — people need to be very respectful when they are patronizing another person’s business or property. It’s best to leave peacefully if anything out of the ordinary arises, instead of leaving in handcuffs in the back of a police vehicle.

Texas Law Definition of Criminal Trespass Under Penal Code § 30.05

Criminal trespass occurs when someone unlawfully enters or remains on property without the owner’s consent. In other words, if you’re given notice entry is not allowed, stay away. If you’re given notice to leave, get out.

A wide range of property is protected under this statute, including residential land, agricultural land, recreational vehicle parks, buildings, residential treatment centers, aircraft, vehicles, and even certain critical infrastructure facilities like power plants or telecommunications hubs.

Staying After Being Told to Leave Can Result in Arrest in Montgomery County

What many Montgomery County residents may not realize is that criminal trespass does not require forceful entry. Simply remaining on the property after being told to leave either verbally or through posted signage can result in your arrest.

So, if you’re asked to leave, don’t badger the staff. Don’t insist on speaking to a manager who may or may not be there. Just leave.

Legal Ways Property Owners Provide Notice to Prevent Trespass in Texas

The law provides detailed ways notice can be given that entry is forbidden, including traditional signage, fencing, or purple paint markings on trees or posts. It may seem like common sense, but it’s worth noting that a locked door itself can be notice in the context of places like apartments, homes, and schools.

Texas has a long tradition of supporting property rights amid the state’s rural history. Interestingly, the law explicitly details the use of purple paint marks. These marks must be vertical lines at least eight inches long and one inch wide, placed clearly between three and five feet from the ground. Farmers and landowners across Montgomery County and East Texas commonly use this unique Texas provision to signify no trespassing, especially in rural or wooded areas.

Criminal Trespass Penalties in Montgomery County and Across Texas

Penalties for criminal trespass can vary significantly. Generally, criminal trespass is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine.

However, penalties escalate if the offense occurs in certain sensitive areas, such as residential buildings, critical infrastructure sites, Superfund locations, or when carrying a deadly weapon. These circumstances upgrade the charge to a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine.

Why Criminal Trespass Arrests in Montgomery County Should Be Taken Seriously

It’s crucial to remember that even minor incidents like lingering after being asked to leave a restaurant, bar, or event in popular locations like The Woodlands can quickly escalate. Montgomery County law enforcement and business owners are vigilant and quick to invoke these laws.

An arrest, even if the underlying incident seems trivial, can significantly impact your record, employment, and reputation.

Legal Defense for Criminal Trespass Charges in Montgomery County, Conroe, and The Woodlands

If you find yourself accused of criminal trespass, effective and knowledgeable legal representation is critical. At Alsbrooks Law, we carefully examine every detail of your case, from the initial warning signs posted to the nature of your presence on the property.

If you face a criminal trespass charge in Montgomery County, including Conroe, The Woodlands, or surrounding areas, Alsbrooks Law is ready to defend your rights and fight for a favorable resolution.

Owens v. State: Harassment Law, Free Speech, and Future Prosecutions in Texas

In Owens v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued a meaningful opinion that pushes back against the broad use of one portion of Texas’s harassment statute, specifically Penal Code §42.07(a)(7).

This case marks an important potential shift in how courts will evaluate harassment prosecutions, especially when electronic communications and the First Amendment intersect.

Background: The Statute and Prior Cases

Texas Penal Code §42.07(a)(7) criminalizes sending repeated electronic communications with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another person. Until recently, Texas prosecutors leaned heavily on two Court of Criminal Appeals decisions, Ex parte Barton and Ex parte Sanders, which upheld the harassment statute’s constitutionality on the grounds that it regulated conduct, not speech.

Those cases gave prosecutors wide latitude to bring harassment charges even when the communications contained expressive speech. In effect, the court said it didn’t matter what was said, only how often and why it was sent. But in Owens v. State, that narrative changed.

**What Happened in Owens?**

Kevin Owens (not the wrestler) was convicted of harassment for sending dozens of emails, texts, and social media messages to his former therapist over several months. These messages, sent to her professional accounts, not her personal ones, contained offensive language and allegations of abuse, exploitation, and misconduct. The therapist never responded, but she forwarded the messages to police and testified that the content made her feel harassed and afraid. Owens was convicted under the Harassment statute.

The trial court and appellate court upheld the conviction. But the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that Owens was punished for the content of his speech, not the mere act of sending messages. That distinction matters a lot.

The Court’s Reasoning: Content-Based Punishment

The Court found that the prosecution focused on what Owens said, not just that he said it repeatedly.

Importantly, both the complaining witness and the judge conceded that had the messages said something different like “good morning” instead of “you raped me” then no prosecution would have occurred.

Because the conviction hinged on message content, the Court ruled that strict scrutiny applied.

Under the First Amendment, content-based restrictions are presumptively unconstitutional unless narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The State failed to meet that burden.

Why This Matters for Future Harassment Cases

This decision doesn’t strike down §42.07 as unconstitutional on its face. But it doessend a clear warning: prosecutors cannot use the statute to punish offensive or upsetting speech just because it causes emotional discomfort, especially when sent to public or professional accounts. The ruling reaffirms a bedrock principle of the First Amendment: offensive speech is still protected speech. As the Court put it, “Protecting people from unwelcome communications is not, by itself, a compelling state interest.”

Alsbrooks Law: Protecting the Rights of the Accused

At Alsbrooks Law, we know how easily criminal charges like harassment or stalking can arise from emotionally charged disputes or misunderstood communications.

In a digital age, what someone says online, even if angry or inappropriate, should not automatically become a crime.

If you’re facing a harassment or free speech-related charge in Montgomery County, Conroe, or anywhere in Texas, we’re ready to protect your rights.

Hardridge: Texas Higher Court Affirms That Affidavit Without Verbal Oath Invalidates Search Warrant

In a significant ruling for Texas criminal defense, the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas recently affirmed that an affidavit supporting a search warrant must be sworn under oath before a qualified officer or magistrate.

An officer simply signing the document is not enough. The case, State v. Hardridge, serves as a powerful reminder of the constitutional protections all Texans have against unlawful searches, especially in DWI cases.

What Happened in the Hardridge Case?

In September 2021, a police officer arrested Dennis Hardridge for driving while intoxicated (DWI) after a traffic stop. When Hardridge refused to voluntarily give a breath or blood sample, the officer applied for a search warrant to draw blood. He prepared a probable cause affidavit, which included standard oath language like “being duly sworn upon oath.”

However, there was a problem. The officer never swore a verbal oath before a magistrate or notary. The affidavit was not notarized. The officer even filled out the section for the notary himself and left the notary signature line blank.

Despite this, a statist judge signed the warrant based on the affidavit, and the officer used the signed warrant to obtain a blood sample from Hardridge.

Hardridge later moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the affidavit failed to meet the legal requirements for a sworn oath.

The Court’s Ruling: No Oath Means an Invalid Warrant

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court: the affidavit was not valid because the officer never swore an oath before anyone.

“Having failed to take an oath and swear to the facts of his probable-cause affidavit before a qualified officer, the officer in this case failed to meet the essential oath requirement.”

The court emphasized that under both the Texas Constitution and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a sworn affidavit is a non-negotiable prerequisite for a valid search warrant. Signing an affidavit isn’t enough. There must be an actual verbal or otherwise solemnized oath administered before a judge, notary, or other qualified official.

The Good-Faith Exception Doesn’t Apply

The State also tried to argue that the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule should apply. Their reasoning? The officer believed in good faith that the affidavit was properly sworn and the judge issued the warrant.

But the court rejected that argument, too.

“The officer’s subjective belief that his affidavit was properly sworn, when it objectively was not, is not a fact or circumstance… to measure the objective reasonableness of his conduct.”

In other words, an officer can’t rely on a warrant he knows is defective, especially when the defect was within his personal knowledge. The court concluded that no objectively reasonable officer could have believed this affidavit satisfied the oath requirement.

Why This Case Matters for Texas Citizens

This opinion is a win for constitutional rights and due process. It reinforces a critical safeguard that law enforcement must follow proper procedures when seeking search warrants, especially in sensitive cases like that involve invasive procedures such as blood draws or breeches into the home.

At Alsbrooks Law, we will work to hold the government accountable when officers cut corners. A DWI arrest or lack of fairness from a statist judge doesn’t mean your rights disappear.

Charged with DWI in Montgomery County? We Can Help.

If you’ve been arrested for DWI, drug possession, or any case involving a search warrant, your first step should be to talk to a defense attorney who knows how to scrutinize every detail of the warrant process.

At Alsbrooks Law, we work to challenge unlawful searches in Conroe, The Woodlands, Montgomery County, and throughout East Texas.

What Is Reckless Driving in Texas?

Under Texas Transportation Code § 545.401, a person commits reckless driving when they operate a vehicle “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” While that verbiage may sound like lawyer-speak, this vague and outdated language often leaves ordinary drivers wondering what actually qualifies as reckless driving in Texas.

Reckless Driving Is a Hybrid Offense in Texas

Reckless driving is classified as a “hybrid offense” under Texas law. That means it’s more serious than a typical traffic ticket (Class C misdemeanor) but doesn’t quite reach the level of a standard criminal misdemeanor (Class B misdemeanor). The potential penalties include:

A fine of up to $200
Up to 30 days in the county jail
Or both the jail time and the fine

While the statutory punishment may seem light, the real danger lies in how prosecutors use it. In Montgomery County and across Texas, prosecutors often push for unnecessary probation terms, burdensome conditions, and overreaching court supervision – all based on what might have been a momentary lapse in judgment behind the wheel.

No Clear Standards = Wide Police Discretion

What does “willful or wanton disregard” actually mean? That’s the problem. There’s no clear-cut standard. Texas police officers don’t use a reckless driving checklist. There is certainly case law establishing what may qualify as reckless driving, but there is no objective standard. Instead, police officers often act on instinct or frustration – meaning one driver might get a warning or ticket, while another gets cuffed and booked for the same exact behavior.

A reckless driving arrest in Texas brings serious consequences: jail, bail, court dates, and a criminal record. And all of it can hinge on a split-second decision by an officer who didn’t like what they saw.

A Tool for Overzealous Arrests

Because reckless driving is a subjective charge, it’s increasingly being used as a catch-all by officers who are irritated, impatient, or overly aggressive. Did you make a sudden stop, swerve to catch an exit, or change lanes without signaling? Under the wrong circumstances, that could land you in jail – even if there was no real danger to anyone.

In the past, this charge was reserved for truly dangerous conduct: think of the reckless teenager weaving through traffic at 100+ miles-per-hour for many miles on the interstate. Today, that same charge might be used against someone who made one poor judgment call or annoyed the wrong police officer. People have to tap their brakes all the time on the interstate. Aggressive driving or non-courteous driving is not necessarily reckless driving, especially when the offense involved one, isolated maneuver and not prolonged conduct.

Arrested for Reckless Driving in Texas? Call Alsbrooks Law.

If you’ve been arrested or charged with reckless driving in Montgomery County, or anywhere in the Houston or East Texas area, don’t wait. At Alsbrooks Law, we know how to challenge reckless driving allegations. We’ll review dash cam and body cam footage, examine every detail of your case, and fight to protect your rights. You shouldn’t face jail time or probation just because of one alleged mistake.

Call Alsbrooks Law today to schedule a free consultation.

Texas Hit-and-Run Laws Go Beyond Just Injury Accidents

What You Need to Know About Fixtures and Unattended Vehicles

1. Striking an Unattended Vehicle (Section 550.024)

Say you’re backing out of a parking lot and accidentally bump into another vehicle. There’s no driver around, and the damage looks minor. Do you have to do anything?

Yes – you do, and failing to act could get you in trouble with law enforcement.

Under Texas Transportation Code § 550.024, a driver who hits an unattended vehicle is legally required to:

Try to locate the owner of the other car and give them your name, address, and vehicle info;
Leave a clearly visible note with your name, contact details, and a brief explanation of what happened.

Failing to do either can lead to criminal charges even if the damage is minor.

2. Striking Fixtures or Highway Landscaping (Section 550.025)

Did you accidentally knock over a mailbox, street sign, or damage a fence next to the road? That’s not just a matter for your insurance – it could be a criminal offense under Texas Transportation Code § 550.025.

Drivers involved in accidents that damage any structure, fixture, or landscaping legally placed near a highway must:

Take reasonable steps to locate and notify the owner or person in charge; and
Provide their name, address, and vehicle registration. If requested, they must also show a driver’s license.

As with unattended vehicles, failure to comply could land you in legal trouble.

Why This Matters

Many drivers are surprised to learn they can face criminal charges even without injuries or direct contact with another person. Something as simple as hitting a signpost or grazing a bumper and leaving without leaving a note can escalate into a criminal case. These charges can affect your driving record, your criminal record, and your insurance rates, and could result in arrest or a warrant.

Charged with a Hit-and-Run or Property Damage Offense in Texas?

At Alsbrooks Law, we defend clients across Montgomery County and the Greater Houston Area who are facing criminal charges for vehicle-related offenses. Whether you’ve been charged under Section 550.024 or 550.025, you need experienced legal representation to protect your record and your rights.

Call Alsbrooks Law today for a free consultation. Don’t let a simple mistake become a permanent problem.

Charged with Fraudulent Use of Identifying Information in Montgomery County? Here’s What You Need to Know

Being accused of identity theft under Texas Penal Code § 32.51 is a serious matter. This law, often referred to as Fraudulent Possession or Use of Identifying Information, carries steep penalties and long-term consequences. If you or someone you know has been charged under this statute, understanding the law is the first step toward building an effective defense.

What Is “Identifying Information” Under Texas Law?

Texas law defines “identifying information” broadly. It includes things like:

– A person’s name and date of birth.
– A person’s Social Security number.
– Biometric data such as fingerprints, or retina scans.
– Bank account numbers and routing codes.
– PINs, passwords, and telecommunication access devices

In short, if a piece of information can be used to identify someone or access their personal or financial information, it likely qualifies as identifying information under Texas law.

What Constitutes a Crime Under Section 32.51?

Under Section 32.51(b), it is a crime to possess, obtain, transfer, or use someone else’s identifying information without their consent and with the intent to harm or defraud.

This includes:

– Using someone’s credit card or bank account without permission.
– Stealing or buying social security numbers.

Importantly, if you’re caught with the identifying information of three or more people, Texas law presumes you intended to commit fraud even if there’s no direct evidence of harm.

Penalties for Identity Theft in Texas

The penalties for violating § 32.51 depend on how many pieces of identifying information are involved:

-Less than 5 items: State jail felony

-5 to 9 items: Third-degree felony

-10 to 49 items: Second-degree felony

-50 or more items: First-degree felony

If the alleged victim is an elderly person or the information was used to commit a sex offender registration offense, the punishment can be ramped up to a higher degree offense.

Restitution and Double Jeopardy

If convicted, the court may also order restitution, requiring the defendant to pay back lost income or expenses the victim suffered.

This offense can often overlap with other crimes like credit card abuse or forgery, bur the State of Texas can choose to prosecute you under multiple statutes.

Defending Against Identity Theft Charges

A young lady who was getting back on her feet once borrowed a car from a man who lived at her apartment, only to get stopped because the registration was expired. She granted consent to search the vehicle, but was shocked when police found a notebook with names, addresses, and credit card numbers inside the glove compartment. The lady knew nothing about this notebook, but she found herself taken to jail and charged with an offense under § 32.51 of the penal code.

At Alsbrooks Law, we understand that people can find themselves in difficult situations. Maybe you didn’t know the information was stolen. Maybe you had consent to use the information only for a disgruntled family member to cry foul later. Maybe law enforcement jumped to conclusions without solid proof of fraud.

Regardless of the details, you have rights, and we’re here to defend them. Contact Alsbrooks Law to discuss your case today.