Beginning September 1, 2001, evading detention with a vehicle became a state jail felony. If there was a high speed chase, we also allege that the vehicle was used or exhibited as a deadly weapon, making the offense a third degree felony. I am thinking that there should be no probation for this crime, given the danger to the public and officers. Does anyone have any jury verdicts or policies?

Surely, someone has an exciting high speed evading case that has been successfully prosecuted. And the sentence?

I suppose that my compadres over at the Guadalupe County D.A.'s office are too proud to tell you about their upcoming case with Mr. Sossamon. Seems that Mr. Sossamon didn't want to be caught and sent back to Waco to face his Murder charge, so he led the S.O. on a bit of a run. He'll be representing himself (due to the lack of qualified defense attorneys in Guadalupe County). His entire defense can be succinctly narrowed down to one statement: He just doesn't believe this should be a felony. So, if you haven't tried one, or haven't viewed one being tried, this ought to be a great one. Call Frank and ask him when the trial is!!!

We got a conviction yesterday on a case in which an inmate of our local state jail escaped (with a co-defendant), stole a car, and led police on a high speed chase that ended on Montgomery County.

The defendant who has a very long criminal history from four states (including two escapes), testified before the jury and raised the defense of necessity. He said he was a target of gangs and had to leave or get beat up or killed. He also said that our state jail was the worst prison he had been in (compared to his lengthy list of old residences). He said he preferred single or double celled prisons.

The jury rejected the defense and is assessing punishment today.

Of course, he was convicted of the escape, but we also included a UUMV.

Funny you should ask. On Tuesday of this week one of our officers was involved in a high speed chase (maintained speeds of 100 m.p.h.) that lasted about 25 minutes and went through three counties.

The chase ended when the elected constable in the third county, while driving his own personal vehicle (a one ton dually pickup), entered the freeway from the feeder at 100 m.p.h. and gave the defendant's Ford Mustang a love tap into the center median.

Charges to driver:

1. Driving w/o license;
2. No insurance
3. Felony evading (enhanced to 3d degree because I convicted him last year of running from same officer)
4. Aggravated Assault on a public servant (for trying to run a DPS Trooper off the road)

Charges to passenger:

1. Felony Evading (normally wouldn't do this, but you can see the passenger turn his baseball cap around backwards on the as the chase begins on the videotape plus he makes some great statements when he's left in the patrol car with the co-defendant)

To top it all off, I seized the car under Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the defendant has just paid cash for the 1998 Mustang on 12/28/2001 with money he received from a civil settlement with the State of Texas as a result of his father being killed in a DPS pursuit last year).

I tell ya--I'll be able to write a book no one will believe one day.

Robert DuBoise

Robert, be sure to mention in your book that you are a thief. Although a legal maneuvre, siezing his car which was bought with monies that were not ill gained is just plain wrong, legal or not. It is my humble opinion (and yes, I know what opinions are like) that this tactic, not just in this case, but in any case where property being siezed was aquired by legal means with legally gained assetts, is nothing more than out and out thievery. This makes you and every other prosecutorial party who has used this tactic to sieze property belonging to someone else as guilty of wrongdoing, and in many cases guilty to a much higher degree, than the party you are prosecuting. If you are stopped by a traffic cop and cited for a speeding violation should we therefore consider your vehicle a deadly weapon and sieze it? After all, if you were travelling above the marked speed limit you were obviously a danger to yourself and all other commuters with whom you came in contact. Think about it! If we try hard enough we may just be able to reword the constitution in such a way that "Man" is nothing more than an entity to be used to gain whatever assets we fancy on any particular day or on the slightest whim. Why, let's go ahead and just take away All his rights and be done with it. Why alter them one at a time like we've been doing for so long? Maybe we can....... Get the idea???

This user group is not available for name-calling by retired, cranky individuals. It is a user group for prosecutors to inform each other on developments in criminal law and to discuss our work in a professional, supportive atmosphere. Please reconsider your approach.

Aside from the lack of courtesy, seizure of property used in the commission of certain crimes, including evading arrest or detention is appropriate under art. 59.02 (see the defintion of "contraband" under art. 59.01(2)(A)(ii)). There's a big difference between your casual speeder and the evader who leads law enforcement on a chase at speeds exceeding 100mph, endangering the citizens and officers on the road with the suspect.

While I will be the first to agree that "sd1nash" is entitled to his opinion, he makes it sound like the DEF in that fleeing case has lost all his "rights" -- and that's just not true. If he and his attorney believe the forfeiture is wrong--as sd1nash believes it to be--guess what? They can fight it out in court. And, yes, we'll protect his rights in court before a judge and/or a jury. We'll certainly be more mindful of his rights than the day he was endangering the rights of all the others on that "little chase" he had out on the roadway!

Please don't misunderstand... I am not of the opinion that all seizure is wrong. However when personal property of an individual is seized solely because an opportunity exists to do so per the requirements for such seizure, then it is time we start rethinking our motives.
And as for my rudeness Robert, Please accept my humble appology for the name calling. It had been a very long and trying day, and I had no right to take my frustrations out on you.