"Intent to sell, circulate, or pass" is not defined in 548.603(b), Transp. Code. How do you distinguish the offense defined in subsection (a) (displaying counterfeit insurance document) from that defined in subsection (b)? Arguably both could cover the same conduct, and I have an agency that wants mere display of a fake card to an officer prosecuted as a felony. The statute has no judicial construction. My inclination is that most jurors would hesitate to convict for the felony anyway.

here is something that I found from the state of California that might be helpful. It is a "cached" version of an old webpage so it won't display like a normal one would. But it has some info that might help you as it talks about the difference between simply displaying the fake card to a cop and the making of bunches of fake cards for other people, which would seem to cover your "Intent to sell, circulate, or pass" issues that you mentioned.

I have also included a link to a Missouri COA opinion on this issue as well, which is below the first link.

Hope this helps.



http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:nTSgvyMG2i4J:www.sen.ca.gov/leginfo/BILL-6-DEC-1998/CURRENT/AB/FROM0800/AB0834/AACPUBS3.TXT+displaying+counterfeit+insurance+document&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mo&vol=/appeals/032007/&invol=9203107

It is through the insight of life's experience I have found clarity beyond the social stigma of right or wrong & immanent judgement of human nature. It is this indifference that nothing can hide & I speak objectively.

How do you determine a person's intent to display a fraudulent insurance card when he has an inalienable right to travel & wuold if not inhibited by his inability to pay or meet demands imposed through corporate tyrany hidden behind the manipulation of laws. Moreover, the states under the pretense of providing affordable insurance of $1 per day for those eligible, are committing equal offense, for insurance worth nothing more than a blank piece of paper. They claim no responsibility of coverage payouts for accidents or liability for injuries to any parties. the insured assumes all cost including surrobate claims whether they are or are not at fault. The insurance as a matter of legality "Only affords one the ability to drive & deemed legally insured" Unless someone can provide a viable explanation of benefit rather than yet another form of legal extortion of the destitute, shouldn't the insurance companies be charged?

Welcome to the TDCAA Bulletin Boards. The discussions in these user forums are for the benefit of prosecutors and their staff members, although we welcome relevant and appropriate input from other members of the criminal justice and government lawyer community. The opinions expressed on this forum are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of TDCAA, its staff, or any other member of the association. These forums are NOT a source of legal advice for citizens. Call the State Bar of Texas (800/204-2222) for information on seeking legal advice.

(Although, that was a slightly more entertaining brand of crazy than normal.)