This is What Happens When You Hire the RIGHT Attor

Ajouté : 2026-05-13

[00:00:00]On March 20th, 2025, defendant Byron Laws appeared in the courtroom of Judge David Fleischer in the Harris County Criminal Court in Houston, Texas. Mr. Laws had been charged with driving while intoxicated with a BAC greater than.15 on October 5th, 2021, and the case was still pending. On March 20th, Mr. Laws was represented by recently appointed defense counsel Anna Edy, who, upon reviewing Mr. Laws' file, asked Judge Fleischer to revisit the issue of probable cause. The Supreme Court determined in the 1975 case of Gerstein versus Pugh that the Fourth Amendment entitles a criminal defendant who was arrested without a warrant and charged by a formal written criminal charge filed by a prosecutor without the involvement of a grand jury to a timely preliminary hearing on whether or not probable cause existed for the warrantless arrest. The court concluded that a prosecutor's determination that there is sufficient probable cause to press charges is insufficient, and that the issue of probable cause must be decided by a neutral magistrate. Texas law incorporates this requirement in Article 14.06 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that an individual arrested without a warrant must be taken before a magistrate, quote, without unnecessary delay, end quote, and at the latest within 48 hours of being arrested. Here, a probable cause determination would have been made according to these requirements when Mr. Laws was originally arrested in 2021, but Ms. Edy requested that Judge Fleischer reconsider whether there was probable cause for the arrest. I am approaching on Laws. Okay. Um, he's the last one, he's on bond. Okay. Um, he has a BVR, but can we hear PC on this one?

[00:01:37]>> Sure. Okay.

[00:01:39]All right. He's on Laws.

[00:01:41]Um.

[00:01:42]8:00. Yes. You don't think there's PC? I don't Looking at the dims, but reasonable minds can disagree, Judge.

[00:01:50]Have we done PC on this before?

[00:01:53]Um, I don't know. This This an older case, and I just got appointed on it last month. So Did you already approach on PC on this? I have not. Well, don't worry. I'll I'll just be honest, Judge.

[00:02:05]I had assumed because of the age of the case that PC had been done.

[00:02:10]But >> And and of course it has been.

[00:02:12]>> Right. But there's new set of eyes, you know? Okay, ready?

[00:02:17]Yes, Your Honor. Sorry, just reading through this 2021 case.

[00:02:20]On October 5th, 2021 officers were dispatched to a DWI call.

[00:02:29]The officer dispatched to a possible intoxicated driver call. The witness stated he observed the defendant to go in and out of lanes while swerving into oncoming highway traffic. The officers conducted a traffic stop. The officer observed the defendant to have glassy eyes, slurred speech, and odor of alcoholic beverage or balance. Client, please. Full beard inside vehicle. The FSTs were conducted.

[00:02:53]It was a six out of six on the HGN and a seven out of eight on the walk and turn and a four out of four on the one-leg stand. The breath is a 0.15.

[00:03:03]So according to the DIMS, which is the sworn statement that we use for PC, it just says the officers in this initiated a traffic stop on the defendant's vehicle at an address and there's no reason given in the DIMS for the stop. I heard something different.

[00:03:22]That was Yes, not in the DIMS. It was the probable offense report.

[00:03:27]Sure, I mean what's But I thought for PC we just use the DIMS because that was sworn to and not getting into the >> Show me where it says that.

[00:03:37]I don't know of any rule that says that it's PC has to be done on the just the DIMS. Okay. You know, I don't If you can direct me to something, but I've never >> be my misunderstanding of a PC. I don't And and I've heard this before, right?

[00:03:51]But I can't I've never seen anything where someone has ever directed me to saying, "Hey, PC is only has to be just on the DIMS, you know?"

[00:04:00]>> Because the DIMS is sworn and just like when the when Judge Powell was up here and he wanted to get into the facts, he couldn't.

[00:04:08]>> if he's getting into the facts, then that's something different, right?

[00:04:11]>> Well, and no one's getting into the >> document, too. The offense report is a sworn document.

[00:04:17]I mean, I guess, Your Honor, I think it's a public record that They're using the DIMS to take the offense report. And also, I don't I have never seen a form where we have to not rely solely on the DIMS. I'm going to ask if it's a public record.

[00:04:28]Back when you go to the grand jury, That's all offense people work. That's all DIMS. That's everything that comes in. It's even evidence against probable cause.

[00:04:37]Yeah, I don't know. I don't think that I mean, let me let's let's look cuz I don't know, you know? Okay, Your Honor.

[00:04:43]I'll I'll I'll You can check with Sure.

[00:04:47]Miss Roberts, please.

[00:04:48]Yeah, we're going to take the Mizzity asserts that a probable cause determination must be based on the allegations in the DIMS and not the factual allegations in the offense report. DIMS stands for the District Attorney Intake Management System, which police officers use to electronically submit criminal charges to the Harris County District Attorney's Office. When someone is arrested without a warrant, the arresting officer contacts an Assistant District Attorney to determine whether there is probable cause for the charge. Once the prosecutor authorizes the filing, the officer logs into the DIMS and completes a series of electronic data screens, including officer information, defendant descriptors, defendant identification method, charge information, summary of facts, witness and complainant data, and complainant property info. According to the DIMS manual, the summary of facts must include a concise factual narrative explaining who, what, when, where, and how the alleged offense occurred. This summary is used by the District Attorney's Office to show probable cause for the warrantless arrest. And the manual specifically notes that reference to an arrest report is not acceptable.

[00:05:52]The officer must specifically state all of the essential facts. Additionally, once the DIMS is sent to the DA, information in the record cannot be changed, added, or deleted. By contrast, an offense report is the formal police narrative written by the investigating officer after the arrest. It provides a detailed account of the incident, including witness statements, observations, test results, and other evidence. Unlike the DIMS, the offense report is often supplemented as the post-arrest investigation unfolds and additional details are uncovered. Here, Ms. Eady is arguing that only the DIMS can be used for a probable cause determination for a warrantless arrest, and that the DIMS in Mr. Law's case did not contain enough information to establish probable cause for his initial arrest. So, you're saying that it doesn't the DIMS has no reason for the stop, right? Is that what you're saying?

[00:06:43]This warrant statement and speaking with this Rogers um order looking, but it's it's not Yeah, I'm looking too. Okay. I am, too. Um there's there was a class action lawsuit and it's part of the settlement. Sure. Can I ask the The agreement was that Harris County would use the DIMS to support Okay.

[00:06:59]PC. But we're we're getting that all together. Me, too. Okay.

[00:07:04]It's 26. On page Was there a result for that? Yes. Or is it in action now? No, no, this was some time ago. So, this was before the DIMS so it always had an oath or affirmation at the bottom of it.

[00:07:18]So, there was a class action lawsuit brought by the Civil Rights Board, and out of that lawsuit, it was just allegations of Fourth Amendment violations because when a warrantless arrest occurs, the Fourth Amendment requires that a neutral magistrate to make a finding of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

[00:07:38]So, as a result of that, the lawsuit, Harris County settled and said, "Okay, we're not going to concede that we were violating the Fourth Amendment, but we will now include an oath affirmation."

[00:07:49]Just So, I think it is a Fourth Amendment issue. Mhm. Well, I think there's I'm I'm curious. So, my I'm curious, for PC purposes, can state use an offense report to supplement the dims, or do we have to Are we strictly going in the four corners of the dims and nothing else? I I don't know. Well, the four corners of the dims is like four different The offense report is not sworn to.

[00:08:14]Mhm.

[00:08:16]That's I find it really weird. How is it that they're creating an offense report and they don't swear to it? You know, because there's In in the offense report, you also have a a search warrant. Like nine times out of 10, you've got a blood search warrant, and that's sworn to.

[00:08:32]That your honor, if if the officer makes something up in the offense report, he is committing a crime. So, I mean, I don't say that the offense report uh is not sworn to. It's a government record that this officer brings name on. If he makes something up or if he lies about something, that is a crime. Right, but filing a false government document is different a different argument altogether. I get it, but wouldn't that be filing a false Right, but perjury is an official document?

[00:09:01]>> a different crime.

[00:09:03]No, but it would also under the purview of filing a false, you know, Well, judge, if an if an officer came into court and was asking for you to sign a search warrant, and they just gave you their offense report, that would not be enough for their search warrant. And it's kind of the same idea. Because this is a warrantless arrest, there has to be someone swearing to the facts to support probable cause for that arrest.

[00:09:28]And similarly, with the search warrant, it has to be supported by oath affirmation. This wasn't a warranted arrest, it was of arrest. And so, it must be supported by probable cause.

[00:09:39]That includes an affidavit. Was there blood in this case?

[00:09:46]Okay. Give me Give me 5 minutes.

[00:09:52]Okay.

[00:09:54]If it's okay with you, I'll we'll Can you show them? Yeah, that's fine.

[00:09:59]Ms. Edie and her colleague mentioned a class action lawsuit involving probable cause determinations in Harris County.

[00:10:05]The case they're referring to is Lomax versus Harris County, which was filed December 28th, 2016 by attorneys from the Civil Rights Corps and the Texas Fair Defense Project. The lawsuit complaint alleged that Harris County practices violated the Fourth Amendment by continuing to detain arrestees without a probable cause determination by a neutral magistrate based on facts supported by an oath or affirmation. As the DIMs report used to find probable cause at that time was not a sworn statement. On November 1st, 2017, the case was resolved through a settlement agreement. Harris County did not admit to any violations of the Fourth Amendment, but the District Attorney did agree to change the process of presenting probable cause statements for warrantless arrests by requiring the officer to swear to the facts as they are being inputted into the DIMs.

[00:10:51]According to the settlement agreement, the system was modified so that every time an arresting officer input facts relating to an arrest in DIMs, they would have to click a box to declare under penalty of perjury that the facts they have reported are true and correct based on information and belief. In other words, the DA agreed to use sworn statements from the DIMs report in order to establish probable cause.

[00:11:14]And you ready?

[00:11:17]Mr. Laws, come up.

[00:11:19]We have court orders for a reason, and when you don't follow court orders, bad things happen. Do you understand? Yes.

[00:11:28]You were ordered to get an interlock, and you you get it or a portable device and you didn't get it. That's unacceptable.

[00:11:37]When we don't, there are serious serious consequences. The only thing I'm asking you to don't endanger my streets. Don't kill someone on the road. Do you understand? Yes, sir. I'm going to find no probable cause in your case now, but if you come back with a new [clears throat] case and you don't follow court orders, it's really not going to go well for you. Do you understand? Yes, sir. All right. Good luck.

[00:12:02]Thank you. Thank you.

[00:12:04]We are going through the lawsuit and, you know, 2017 the county came into an agreement where we're basically holding it to a higher standard, so to speak. I mean, theoretically, could I weasel out of it?

[00:12:20]Yes, but I don't want to, you know. I want to stick with the agreement that the county came to with the district attorney's office, you know. I'm not saying we do this in this case. I'm just for curiosity.

[00:12:31]DIMS has to state an offense, right? It has to say It has to have all the elements of the offense to go forward.

[00:12:39]The reason, I mean, I would presume that offense reports don't is because they're continually just updated and they're amended and they they supplement it. So, it it would be unreasonable to have an officer every single time they swear to over and over and over and over because you might get like 15 supplements. Here's my question in further words and with I'm not saying we do this in this case. I'm just saying for cases going forward. To me then, does that then behoove that say we can't take it to a grand jury? I mean, I You can. Of course, you can. So, I just because I find no probable cause on something, if you want to go indict it, go do it. Right. I Okay. Absolutely.

[00:13:16]There's nothing barring you from doing it, right? Because if a grand jury finds something different, then that's on them. Yeah. As far as me, I'm going to just hold it to the standard that we agreed with the county in the lawsuit.

[00:13:26]I'm just this is for my And you you're not going to hurt my feelings. You can do whatever you want.

[00:13:32]So we wouldn't be held to that same standard. You need to You need to do what you think is right.

[00:13:36]I'm going to do it. And like she's doing it. The problem is is that whoever had the apps they didn't dive into it and really look into it as handed it, you know. Not everybody is >> [laughter] >> God love you, man. Judge Fleischer determined that there was no probable cause to support the charge based on the sworn facts contained in the DIM's report as required by the Lomax versus Harris County settlement order. However, because Mr. Laws was charged by an information, which is a charging instrument filed by a district attorney, Judge Fleischer advised the prosecutor that he could still pursue an indictment through a grand jury. A grand jury is a group of citizens who are convened to decide whether there is enough evidence to formally charge someone with an offense. In Texas, grand juries are made up of 12 people. During the proceedings, which are governed by chapter 20A of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a prosecutor presents evidence and calls witnesses to testify under oath.

[00:14:36]Usually, police officers, complainants, or other witnesses involved in the case.

[00:14:40]If at least nine of the 12 grand jurors agree that the evidence establishes probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the suspect committed it, they return what is called a true bill, which becomes a formal indictment. If they do not find probable cause, they issue a no bill, meaning no indictment is returned and the case does not proceed. Now here, although Judge Fleischer's ruling on probable cause meant that the current charge could not stand due to the deficient DIM's report, the district attorney's office still had the option to try to obtain an indictment through the grand jury. After Judge Fleischer's probable cause ruling, the state moved to dismiss the charge against Mr. Laws while reserving the right to refile it at a later date. The court granted the motion and formally dismissed the case. As of the time of writing this episode, Harris County prosecutors have not refiled the charge against Mr. Laws. This case highlights the importance of accuracy, transparency, and adherence to constitutional procedures in the criminal charging process. When law enforcement officers prepare probable cause statements and prosecutors review them for filing, both are acting as gatekeepers of the defendant's fundamental rights. And the Fourth Amendment requires that criminal charges rest on properly sworn facts and an independent judicial determination of probable cause. These requirements are not merely technicalities. They are safeguards designed to prevent unlawful arrests and to preserve public confidence in the fairness of the justice system by ensuring that every case begins with a lawful and well-supported foundation. Officers and prosecutors protect not only the rights of the accused, but also the integrity and legitimacy of the judicial system.

[00:16:17]Let us know if there is a case or courtroom interaction that you'd like us to cover in the comments below. Thank you for watching, and don't forget to subscribe and share so that we can foster a