31 March

Sticky

Life Insurance & Texas DWI

Name: The Coffey Firm
Price range: $$$

Mimi Coffey DWI Lawyer, Life Insurance Life insurance is very important to ensure that loved ones have some security in case the worst happens. But, did you know that a DWI conviction might negatively impact your ability to obtain life insurance? While there does not seem to be any law stating life insurance consequences of a DWI, many life insurance companies tend to make obtaining a policy difficult with a DWI on a person’s record. For most companies, there is a 2-3 year waiting period after a DWI to get a life insurance policy. However, some companies might have a person wait up to 5 years, while other may deny coverage entirely. Some people might be able to obtain a policy during the “waiting” period, but with much higher premium payments.

The problem is much bigger for those with multiple DWIs. While it may still be possible with extremely high premiums, most life insurance companies outright refuse policies to those with more than one DWI. Whether it is because of the criminal aspect or the potential for alcoholism, many companies see too much risk when DWI is involved. Some, if not all, companies might require you to give a blood sample. Others might require you to get a full medical diagnosis before even considering granting a policy.

Health Insurance might suffer too!

The same might also apply to health insurance. Health providers feel reluctant to give a policy to someone with a “preexisting condition” such as alcoholism. A DWI conviction might give these companies the justification they want to deny or overcharge you. What these companies are really doing is harming you and your loved ones. Denying health coverage, for example, means that getting treatment for alcoholism becomes that much more difficult. For life insurance, it means your loved ones might not receive benefits after an accident completely unrelated to the DWI.

One possible solution, depending on recency of the DWI conviction, is to seal your record. If the DWI is eligible for a nondisclosure, this might prevent you from having issues getting life or health insurance. Please call our Dallas and Fort Worth DWI Lawyers to see if your DWI might be eligible for sealing.

More about Mimi Coffey & The Coffey Firm

When people look for a Top DWI Attorney or Best DWI Attorney, they look for experience, certification, and respect in the legal community. Mimi Coffey is a nationally-renowned trial attorney, board-certified in DWI by the NCDD. She has been practicing for over 24 years and is an author of multiple DWI Defense textbooks. She is also a national and state-wide lecturer on the law.

The Coffey Firm handles a wide variety of cases, including Unlawful Carrying Weapon (UCW), Assault (including family violence), and Possession charges. We can also help you try to seal your record or avoid probation revocation.

Mimi is also listed on several “top criminal lawyer near me” directory listings such as DWI Lawyers for Wise County, DWI Lawyer Tarrant County, DWI attorney Dallas County, DWI attorneys Collin County and DWI attorneys Parker County. Mimi is a caring DWI Lawyer in DFW, She is also involved in the Texas Tech School of Law foundation and enjoys using the skills she has developed to give back to the community.

24 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Turn Signals: A Common Cause for DWI Stops

Posted by Mimi Coffey

in Helpful Legal Information

Mimi Coffey DWI Lawyer, Turn Signal One of the most common bases for a traffic stop leading a DWI arrest is failure to use a signal. While it is a relatively minor offense, keep in mind that police only need a single reason, no matter how minor, to have reasonable suspicion to make a stop. Reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts that indicate that a person is, was, or will be involved in criminal activity. Though small, traffic violations are still “criminal activity” for purposes of making DWI stops.

Turn Signal Statute

The statute regarding turn signals is Transportation Code section 545.104. That statute states:

(a) An operator shall use [a signal] . . . to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or start from a stopped position.

(b) An operator intending to turn a vehicle right or left shall signal continuously for not less than the last 100 feet of movement of the vehicle before the turn.

Subsection (c), while still important, is not as commonly mentioned. That subsection says that drivers cannot use turn signals as a “do pass” signal to other drivers.

Breaking down the Turn Signal Statute

The statute is short and sweet. It is also somewhat easy to understand. However, pay very close attention to the bold and italicized words. First, the person must “intend” to turn or change lanes for the statute to apply. For example, police shouldn’t be able to stop you for this “violation” if you suddenly have to swerve to avoid something in the road. While there is still some “intent” to turn or change lanes (i.e., you “intend” to move away from the obstacle), there likely would not be enough legal intent.

Second, subsection (a) specifically states three situations requiring use of a turn signal. The most important two for most stops are turns and lane changes. Notice how they are completely separate actions and not lumped into just “turns”. This is important for the third point.

Third, subsection (b) establishes a 100 foot requirement for signalling an intent to turn. Unlike subsection (a), this subsection only mentions the word “turn”. In other words, the 100 foot requirement only applies to turns, NOT lane changes. There is no reason for the statute to treat the two as separate actions in one subsection only to generalize them both as “turns” for the other! This, however, has not stopped at least one court from holding that the 100 foot requirement also applies to lane changes. A good review of your DWI Video will show your DWI Lawyer whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the DWI stop or not.

More about Mimi Coffey & The Coffey Firm

22 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Operation and DWI

Posted by Mimi Coffey

in Helpful Legal Information

Mimi Coffey DWI Lawyer, Operation Despite the title “driving while intoxicated”, the law really only requires what it calls “operation” while intoxicated. This is one of the main reasons why there is plenty of confusion when police make a DWI arrest on a person sleeping in their car (for example). In other words, there is no actual “driving” requirement for DWI stops! Can you believe the law allows something so ridiculous?!

What is Operation?

The worst part of the “operation” requirement is that the law does not clearly define what “operation” is. The most common, and simple, way to describe “operation” is performing an act that enables you to drive your car. As an example, if you fell asleep behind the wheel on the side of the road, you might have “operated” your car to get there. Conversely, if you never left your parking space but turned your car on, then perhaps you never “operated” your car. Neither of these are sure-fire examples, but are considerations depending on the other facts of your case.

So Just Sleeping in My Car is “Operation”?

One positive note on “operation” is that other facts must support it. In other words, just being asleep in a running car is not, by itself, “operating” the car. However, this does not stop police from making arrests, and DAs from filing charges, based on that fact alone. Police can still cause a great deal of anxiety and panic because they decided to make an arrest, even if the other facts of the case do not support the arrest. The problem is that almost *any* supporting facts may show “operation” even if it is the tiniest of details. For example, having feet touching the petals, even if your car is in park, might be enough to support a claim of “operating” your car since it shows that it might be used to drive.

Admissions to Driving

Here is the *real* problem with the “additional facts” to support operation. Your admission to driving can be that fact. Despite the existence of the doctrine of “corpus delicti” (an admission is not enough without other evidence), police will still use an admission of driving as evidence of operation. Further, that admission might appear in court as part of the Prosecution’s evidence supporting operation. Though there are things that you must do when asked by police (i.e., show license and insurance), you can refuse to answer questions or otherwise speak to the police. While police might use this refusal against you in other ways, it might prevent giving too much information relating to operation.

What if I “operated” my car while not drunk?

There is one bit of *good* news, though. Police and the Prosecution must still prove that you intoxication while operating. Simply showing that you “operated” your car is not enough for a DWI conviction. If you have open containers, then perhaps you might have been intoxicated while driving. Like with the “operation” fact, police might arrest you for DWI even before having solid proof that you were intoxicated *while* driving. This means that the fear and anxiety of a DWI arrest still affects you even if the DWI blood test shows no intoxication while “operating” your car.

“Operation” cases

To demonstrate the fine line between what is an is not “operation”, look at these actual cases.

Texas DPS v. Allocca

In this case the Defendant was asleep in his car. He had the engine running and he never left his regular parking space in his parking lot at work. He had his driver’s seat reclined and his feet were not touching the petals. Because there were no additional facts, such as an admission, to show that he ever “operated” his car, the evidence was not sufficient to show operation.

“While an officer need not observe an individual actually driving a vehicle in order to develop probable cause to believe that individual had been driving while intoxicated, the mere act of sitting in a legally parked vehicle while intoxicated does not necessarily establish probable cause absent some other factor, such as a recent collision or bystander reports, indicating that the accused actually drove the vehicle.”

Murray v. State

Like the Allocca case, the Defendant here had his driver’s seat reclined and the car was running and in park. There were no other people in the car and no alcohol containers. However, he was not in a parking space but rather was partially in the shoulder and partially in a driveway. Because he was the only person in the car there was enough evidence to show “operation” in this case. Specifically, this evidence could show that no one else could have driven the car to the location.

More about Mimi Coffey & The Coffey Firm

11 March

0 Comments

Sticky

The Coffey Firm’s Mission Statement

Posted by Mimi Coffey

in Helpful Legal Information

Mimi Coffey DWI Lawyer Everyone makes mistakes. What makes an arrest so scary is the unknown and the shame. An arrest feels like society plastered your name on a billboard or aired it on the news (sometimes it is). The embarrassment of having our family, friends, neighbors and coworkers know about an arrest feels unbearable. The Coffey Firm understands this. Outside of the fear of the unknown, the grief of letting others down is the single most important reason I have found that people come and hire me. Our name, character and reputation mean everything to us. When you go through a DWI, you truly feel all alone but you are not. It is incredibly important to me for you to find yourself, that person before the incident. It is incredibly important for me that you see your value and worth. One incident does not have to define us.

I tell most every client when we are about to watch the DWI video, “No matter how intoxicated you may appear on this video please do not be embarrassed because I can assure you I have been worse.” Truth. Rest assured, that the last thing in the world that I want any of my clients to feel is judged. It is my job to make sure that I not only handle your case to the best of my ability, but to do what I can to remind you that the world needs you. You need you. There is so much more to a happy life than dwelling on this case. So, please hang in there. You pay me to worry for you. Let’s get to thinking positive and moving forward.

Remember that our legal system is based around our Constitution, not the “court of public opinion” that groups like MADD want. I and The Coffey Firm understand the law. Our lawyers will fight for the best possible outcome.

Every client gets my personal cell phone number. When I can’t answer an email or text, I notify our team of attorneys so that your question or concern does not go unanswered. We all know that an arrest of any sort is a stressful, traumatic experience. We are here to help you through this tough experience.

The Coffey Firm answers the phones 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Coffey Firm is here for you. We want to help you get through this traumatic experience and move on with your life. We want to help you get back to where you used to be or better. Call us today if you need help.

Read the full Mission Statement here.

More about Mimi Coffey & The Coffey Firm

10 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Family Violence: Don’t Settle for a Class C Assault!

Posted by Mimi Coffey

in Helpful Legal Information

Mimi Coffey DWI Lawyer, Texas Family Violence, Texas Assault While “class C” misdemeanors are the lowest form of misdemeanor, that does NOT mean the long-term effects are the same. Most, if not all, traffic violations are Class C misdemeanors. Because of this, many generalize Class C misdemeanors as the “equivalent” of traffic tickets. That is far from the truth, especially for family violence.

Do not be tricked by Class C Family Violence Assaults!

What is an Assault?

An assault is legally defined as an offensive contact. An offensive contact is a class C assault which is up to a $500 fine. Once the offensive contact causes pain it becomes a class A misdemeanor with up to a year in county jail and a $4,000 fine. These type of charges can range from slaps in the face to bruising and broken bones. It does not matter whether the victim wants to press charges or not. The police and district attorney decide whether to file a case. They may file in normal courts or family violence courts, depending on the county.

Family Violence Enhancement

A class C Assault usually means “assault by touching” or “assault by threat”. While a class C assault might share a punishment range with traffic tickets, the long-term effects are much different. For one, class C Family Violence assaults enhance future Family Violence charges. In other words, even this “traffic ticket equivalent” offense can potentially make a future Family Violence assault into a felony.

Family Violence Impact on Guns

On top of that, even a misdemeanor Family Violence conviction impacts your ability to buy and possess guns. Under federal law, possessing a gun with a family violence conviction is illegal. 18 USC 922(g)(9). In other words, think of a family violence conviction as putting you on a “watch list” of sorts for buying guns. Most states have similar restrictions, including Texas. In Texas, however, the restriction is not as broad. The federal restriction applies to any family violence misdemeanor. Texas, on the other hand, only applies the restriction to Class A or higher family violence convictions. Under Texas Penal Code 46.04(b), possessing a gun is illegal until 5 years after release from containment or probation. As an example, it would be illegal for someone to have a gun for 7 years if they had a 2 year probation for family violence.

Jobs, Housing, and Other Effects

Though far from universal, many companies now require you to disclose all “non-traffic” convictions. Whether it is for a job, housing, or a license, a class c assault conviction is not safe just because it is “equal” to a traffic ticket. Going further, do not allow a “deferred adjudication” to trick you. While it may sound good on paper, keep in mind that deferred class c assaults still enhance a future charge. In addition, many applications, like with convictions, also ask for disclosure of deferred non-traffic misdemeanors. Fortunately, you might be able to avoid this issue if enough time has passed to petition for an expunction or nondisclosure. Please contact us to discuss your eligibility for nondisclosure.

Practice Self-Help in Stressful Situations

The Coffey Firm highly advises practicing self-help techniques when faced with a stressful situation. Sometimes a little meditation can help calm you body and mind, relieving stress. If the stress starts causing serious issues, perhaps giving therapy or counseling a shot can help. Don’t let the stigma attached to counseling deter you. Therapy does not make you a bad person, it makes you a person who is smart enough to know they need help to handle a stressful situation. Don’t let your stress boil over into shouting matches or coming to blows with a loved one. Physical and verbal violence is never the answer.

More about Mimi Coffey

When people look for a “top criminal lawyer near me” or “best criminal lawyer”, they look for experience, certification, and respect in the legal community. Mimi Coffey is a nationally-renowned trial attorney, board-certified in DWI by the NCDD. She has been practicing for over 24 years and is an author of multiple DWI Defense textbooks. She is also a national and state-wide lecturer on the law.

The Coffey Firm handles a wide variety of cases, including Unlawful Carrying Weapon (UCW), Assault (including family violence), Theft and Possession charges.

Mimi is also listed on several “top” directory listings such as DWI Lawyers for Wise County, DWI Lawyer Tarrant County, DWI Lawyer Dallas County, DWI Lawyer Collin County and DWI Lawyer Parker County. Mimi is a caring DWI Lawyer in DFW, She is also involved in the Texas Tech School of Law foundation and enjoys using the skills she has developed to give back to the community.

05 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Texas DWI & Corpus Delicti

Posted by Mimi Coffey

in Helpful Legal Information

The Law Requires Reasonable Suspicion to Detain for Texas DWI

One of the basis concepts in Criminal Law is that police must have reasonable suspicion to begin an investigation. Reasonable suspicion exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer has specific, articulable facts that, when combined with rational inferences from those facts, would lead him to reasonably conclude that a person is, has been, or soon will be engaged in criminal activity. While this is an objective standard under the law, sometimes the subjective intent of the officer seeps in. For example, while the officer may objectively have a reason to stop you for speeding, he might subjectively want to make a DWI stop. The officer may develop this intent if, for example, his patrol route is in an area with multiple bars or if he patrols a specific time of night.

Where this standard becomes questionable is when the “reasonable suspicion” does not arise until after an encounter. To illustrate, imagine seeing an accident on the road and, being a good Samaritan, you pull over to help if needed. The police arrive and start interviewing everyone on scene and, during the conversation, you mention that you had a few drinks earlier before pulling over to help with the accident. Suddenly, the officer pulls you to the side to have you perform the pseudo-scientific SFSTs, even though you were only there to help!

Corpus Delicti

Simply admitting to driving is not enough. This falls under a Criminal Defense rule called “corpus delicti”. This rule requires the Prosecution to prove the commission of a crime before an out-of-court admission to a crime is admissible as evidence. In the realm of Texas DWI, this means that simply admitting to driving is not enough. Further, police may not require a person “to undergo [SFSTs] without reasonable suspicion that the person [is DWI]”.

Rudd v. State

A good example of how Texas likes to ignore this rule is State v. Rudd, 255 S.W.3d 293. In that case, a friend drove out to the scene of an accident at the injured driver’s request. During the course of investigating the accident, police notice the “smell of alcohol” on Rudd. Rudd was already out of his car when police arrived, but they made him do the SFSTs anyways. Ultimately, police arrested Rudd for DWI despite no driving facts other than Rudd’s admission.

The trial court suppressed evidence of the SFSTs based on an “invalid detention” (i.e., no reasonable suspicion). This was an amazing display of justice by the trial court. Unfortunately, the appellate court said the trial court erred. The appellate court said that the officer did have reasonable suspicion for the DWI investigation. In what world is allowing police to arrest with no driving facts just? Texas has no excuse for ignoring the reasonable suspicion requirement for investigations. We should not be coming up with any unrelated excuse to jump into SFSTs and DWI investigations. The law requires reasonable suspicion to detain for Texas DWI.

About Mimi

Mimi is listed on several “best” directory listings such as DWI Lawyers for Wise County, DWI Lawyer Tarrant County, DWI Lawyer Dallas County, DWI Lawyer Collin County, DWI Lawyer in Johnson County and DWI Lawyer Parker County. Mimi is a caring DWI Lawyer in DFW. She is also involved in the Texas Tech School of Law foundation and enjoys using the skills she has developed to give back to the community.

01 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Probation Revocation is NOT a hearsay “free-for-all”

Posted by Mimi Coffey

in Helpful Legal Information

Texas DWI, Mimi Coffey DWI Lawyer, DWI Probation It is particularly accepted that that the rules of evidence do not apply to probation revocation hearings in Texas. This is a dangerous practice when it comes to people’s liberty. Courts are starting to push back against this practice, but many issues still exist when it comes to probation revocation proceedings.

Torres v. State

Facts

A recent case out of the 1st district of Houston is hopefully a step in the right direction. In Torres v. State, No. 01-18-01074-CR (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 22, 2020), the Prosecution moved to revoke Defendant’s probation for failing to “successfully complete” the SAFP program. One of the primary problems with this revocation is that it was based on the testimony of a SAFP coordinator and a discharge report that did not state any specific violations, but merely stated that Defendant had committed “rule violations”. Furthermore, the testimony of the SAFP coordinator was based on information relayed to him and not on his personal knowledge of the “violations” alleged. In addition, a records custodian with no personal knowledge authenticated Defendant’s probation records.

Confrontation and Authentication in Probation Revocation

The opinion largely focuses on the issue of whether the conclusory statement of general “rule violations” provides sufficient basis for revoking probation. However, as you can see above, there are also issues of authentication and confrontation. Luckily, the Houston court assumed that there was a confrontation right in probation revocation proceedings, even though there is no clear precedent supporting that assumption.

The closest precedent, used by the Houston Court, came in Ex Parte Doan where the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the rules of confrontation apply to probation revocation proceedings. In other words, the court held that a probation revocation is a judicial, not administrative, process. The court did not speak further on the confrontation issue, and the Court of Criminal Appeals has not yet heard another case involving Confrontation in probation revocation proceedings to clarify its holding. Regardless, the Houston court did not deep-dive into the Confrontation issue or the authentication issue.

Fortunately, the concurrence in Torres focused primarily on the Confrontation issue. Justice Keyes believes Doan overrules any case saying that there is no Confrontation right in probation revocation. He also briefly touches upon the hearsay issue by saying that the discharge report is double hearsay despite the business records predicate.

Hearsay and Due Process in Probation Revocation

On the main issue, the Houston court held that there must be a specific basis to support revocation. In other words, testimony and reports with general, conclusory statements are not enough. There must be facts supporting those statements, and there must be some personal knowledge of the bases for the statements. Due Process still exists in probation revocation proceedings. The court must determine that the the reason for revocation is legitimate. Courts must do this “to ensure [discretion] was used on a basis that was rational and connected to the purposes of [revocation]”. Leonard v. State, 385 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Under the facts of Torres, no specific basis for discharge from SAFP existed in the discharge report. Further, the SAFP coordinator knew nothing about the specific bases for discharge.

Score One for Justice for All Texans on Probation!

More about Mimi Coffey & The Coffey Firm

19 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Texas DWI Blood Test Issues

Posted by Mimi Coffey

in Helpful Legal Information

Texas DWI, Blood Draw, Blood Test Mimi Coffey DWI Lawyer Though many don’t realize it, most Texas DWI cases involve DWI blood tests rather than breath tests. This is in large part because of the fact that the law allows police to draw your blood by getting a warrant if you refuse to give breath or blood. Regardless of whether police drew blood as a result of consent or a warrant, there are many issues surrounding the reliability of the result of a blood test. This is in addition to the requirements for blood draws in Texas DWI.

Fermentation

One of the main issues with a Texas DWI blood test is fermentation. The technical definition of fermentation is “the chemical process by which molecules are broken down anaerobically”. This can be described in simpler terms as the process where a substance metabolizes. Many people are familiar with the concept of fermentation related to making things like beer or wine. What many may not know is that blood can also experience fermentation. When a DWI Blood Tube is old or defective, room air can get in and cause the blood to ferment faster. When blood experiences fermentation, it tends to result in a higher blood alcohol score.

For example, a fermented sample may return a result above .15 even though the actual alcohol content should be much lower. This is one explanation for why many people hear/see the blood result and say “I know I wasn’t that drunk”. Mimi has a background in science and has hands-on experience analyzing blood test results through education at Axion Labs and the UTA Shimadzu lab on gas chromatography. This is one reason why Mimi might request blood discovery for your case. What she finds in that discovery might show that fermentation or a host of other issues might be at play.

Other Texas DWI Blood Test Issues

There are a host of issues that can affect the reliability of the blood test or its result, including:

Fermentation (see above)
Contamination – for example, another substance mingles with the blood.
Misidentification – for example, placing the wrong name on the tube. This can also happen when placing incorrect information on the tube..
Improper Calibration – this occurs, for example, when the testers do not properly calibrate the machine used for testing.
Expired Calibration – when the machine used for testing is out-of-date.
Inaccurate Pipettes
Inaccurate Dilutors
Deficient Quality Control – when the technique is not properly supervised, or when the blood results are not double-checked before submission.
Improper venipuncture (see video) – in other words, when the technician does not perform the blood draw correctly.
Inaccurate calculations (at all levels including the calibration curve & margin of error). In other words, interpreting the data incorrectly.

See the below video for an example of proper blood draw procedure.

Mimi Coffey DWI Lawyer, blood test procedure

More about Mimi Coffey & The Coffey Firm

16 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Miracles Do Happen: Clearing Our Client’s Background

Posted by Mimi Coffey

in Helpful Legal Information

Miracle, Geoffrey Reynolds Lawyer Going above & beyond! So proud of Coffey Firm attorney Geoffrey Reynolds who proved that miracles do happen! Years ago a law enforcement government employee accidentally inverted a digit and made it look like our client had a prior DWI that belonged to someone else. We were told it would take an expunction (fees & a legal process) to clear this up when it was not our client’s fault. Geoff spent 6 months working on this, fighting law enforcement (multiple law enforcement divisions refused to call him back) and was finally successful in fixing this grave error at no cost to our client. Now all criminal records are accurate and our teacher client will no longer be denied jobs for a DWI she never had.

A little background:

When we were nearing the end of this client’s case, the District Attorney started talking about a prior DWI from a different county. Our client told us that she had never even been to the county of the alleged conviction! After investigating a bit, we discovered that DPS incorrectly placed this prior DWI on our client’s DPS criminal background. Not only that, the background associated 2006 conviction to a 1994 arrest from our client’s actual county of residence. Digging even deeper, we discovered that this conviction belonged to someone with an who’s ID had one different digit. This means that some law enforcement agency screwed up our client’s background by putting the wrong digit.

We eventually cleared up that confusion on our client’s case, but then faced the task of fixing our client’s background. Geoff started working by contacting the Tarrant County District Attorney’s office to talk to their expunction department. Geoff was not able to reach the DA in charge of that department, but spoke with her assistant. They directed him to contact the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department’s error resolution section, who never returned his calls despite multiple voice messages. Eventually, he contacted the DPS error resolution department itself, who still took their sweet time in responding. After a few months of work, DPS finally contacted our office and told us that they cleared our client’s background. This happened without our client needing to pay any filing fees and without needing any court involvement.

Miracles Really Do Happen!

24 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Marijuana Possession in Fort Worth

Posted by Mimi Coffey

in Helpful Legal Information

Though not a perfect (or long-term) solution, the Fort Worth Police Department has a new policy regarding marijuana possession. If police catch a person possessing a small amount of marijuana (usually under 4 ounces), they will confiscate it but not make an arrest or issue a citation. At least, this is the case in Fort Worth. Other police agencies within Tarrant County do not share this policy and still make marijuana arrests. This means it is up to the District Attorney on whether the prosecute a marijuana possession case from one of these other Tarrant County Police Departments. This is why Fort Worth PD’s solution for marijuana possession charges is not ideal. Mimi is a criminal defense lawyer in Tarrant County and has a reputation as a fighter. She will fight for the best possible solution, especially due to the problem with testing a confiscated substance.

This problem isn’t just focused on Tarrant County, though. There is a reverse situation in Dallas County. There, the DA has a policy of not prosecuting (most) small marijuana possession charges, but Dallas PD still makes arrests and puts people in jail. Not to be overly political, but it seems the ideal solution for this disconnect regarding marijuana possession is to for the State Legislators to step in. If we have a state-wide decriminalization of small marijuana possession, then perhaps it would solve this disconnect while also preventing a backlog of possession cases in the misdemeanor courts.

Why decriminalize small marijuana possession?

Decriminalizing small marijuana possession seems to make sense because there is an issue with testing. Texas recently decriminalized most Hemp and CBD products. Because of this, the State now has a problem in determining the chemical makeup of confiscated substances. There are no labs that have an official way of determining whether a confiscated substance is CBD or marijuana. If the labs cannot differentiate, how would a Prosecutor know whether they are dealing with a legal substance or marijuana? This is a legal issue, because Prosecutors might allege criminal possession when the substance, in fact, was completely legal.

Mimi Coffey appeared on NBC 5 news to provide the perspective of a criminal defense lawyer in Fort Worth. She stated that prosecutors have no way to tell the difference between hemp and marijuana. The full NBC 5 story can be found at https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/fort-worth-police-stop-enforcing-most-marijuana-laws-amid-questions-about-testing/2488259/. Mimi has appeared on many local and national news stations to discuss the perspective of a criminal defense lawyer in Tarrant county.