Carl Lobitz is not only a certified criminal law specialist, this San Antonio Lawyer is also a blogger. Carl’s San Antonio Criminal Lawyer blog has become widely popular for his candid discussion of evolving law. His primary focus has been discussions involving South Texas DWI’s, but he has also touched on the San Antonio court system and it’s interworkings. Carl’s DWI website contains a wealth of information on Texas Law that instructs you of your rights and the black letter law. Carl also deals with erasing your criminal record by handling expunctions. Of course, the legal information in Carl’s website is only for general purposes and should not be taken as legal advice for your specific situation. Attorney blogs have become more popular among San Antonio Lawyers.
Probable cause in obtaining a warrant can be an important factor in deciding whether evidence gathered with that warrant can be used at trial. In Spinelli vs. United States, the FBI obtained a search warrant based on a sparsely corroborated tip from an informant that led to the discovery of evidence that indicated that Spinelli was running an illegal book marking operation. The court ruled an informant’s tip must be sufficiently corroborated to be the basis for probable cause or information supporting the applying officer’s belief that the informant is reliable and credible.
The case of Illinois v. Gates overturned Spinelli. Here, based on a corroborated informant’s tip regarding Gates’ travel plans police obtained a search warrant and discovered marijuana in Gates’ car, which the trial court excluded as fruits of an illegal search. The Spinelli two pronged approach for determining probable cause based on informant’s tip was abandoned in favor of a less technical totality of the circumstances test. The court ruled a search warrant based on an informant’s tip may be properly issued if, given the totality of the circumstances set forth in the warrant application, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of the informant and any corroboration of the informant’s information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence will be found in the place to be searched. This is the totality of circumstances test.
With intent, a person acts intentionally as to the nature of their conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
For knowledge, a person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his or her conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
To define recklessness, a person is reckless, with when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances.
In Thomas vs. State, the appellant was charged with committing murder in Robertson County and venue was changed to Madison County by agreement of all parties. Appellant contends that the State failed to prove venue in Madison County, the county in which the case was tried. Appellant made a motion for instructed verdict stating that venue and jurisdiction were not proven. Where a county acquires venue by virtue of a change of venue order and not by virtue of the commission of an offense, different considerations exist. Venue means the place in which prosecutions are to begin. In the instant case, that means Robertson County, the place where the offense occurred. The State proved that the offense occurred in Robertson County. Appellant phrases his contention as failure to prove venue, but it is really a question of jurisdiction, not venue, since Madison County would not have been a proper county in which to try appellant absent the change of venue.
A police officer may arrest upon satisfactory proof from credible person that felony committed and offender about to escape. Under Cornejo v. State, private citizens who witnessed crime and victims are inherently credible. There are four requirements: credible person, not time to prepare warrant, felony, and offender about to escape. The escape requirement is met where the suspect has previously fled or otherwise evidences an intention to flee. Satisfactory proof of escape is not established by the mere fact a suspect travels from one place to another. Officers who reasonably believe that further investigation of an offense may be necessary in order to justify the issuance of a warrant, and where those officers undertake that invest lawfully and w/o impinging upon reasonable expectations of privacy, and where that invest leads to the receipt of info which in combo with their other info constitutes probable cause to arrest the suspect, but that info is obtained in the presence of the suspect under circumstance which would lead the officers reasonably to believe that the suspect would take flight if given the opport to do so, the officers are authorized to arrest the suspect without first obtaining a warrant. (Dowthitt v. State)
Information on culpability. Except as provided in TPC 6.02 Subsection (b), a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires. If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element. If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is nevertheless required under Subsection (b), intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffices to establish criminal responsibility. Culpability mental states are classified according to relative degrees. Intentional, knowing, reckless, and criminal negligence.
