that sucks then write a better report too bad so that statement I smell marijuana you look intoxicated because it looks like they W he walked away and the cops didn't want him to walk away and so now they need a reason to arrest him perhaps but he's in custody he's in jail just sitting there you know I'm with you okay be careful when you're out there it's hard enough as it is don't give anyone else the power to even bring more you know trouble on your life all right yes sir all right man good luck here are Unforgettable moments when judge save people from Evil cops Michael Jones was standing outside a residence when officers arrived in response to a disturbance call but as soon as they got there he began walking away under Texas penal code section 42.0 speech alone even if loud or aggressive does not constitute disorderly conduct unless it provokes an immediate breach of Peace the officers however commanded Jones to stop and put his hands behind his back without giving a lawful reason when he hesitated they accused him of resisting and used Force to detain him this was a clear violation of his rights as walking away is not a crime the officers were attempting to manufacture probable cause after failing to find a legitimate reason to detain him good morning hey how are you hey buddy if you're banging on the door you got to be careful because you break something they're going to you're going to catch another charge so be careful B on those windows cuz they break very easily all right um so you were Michael Jones Mr Jones we're talking about you so that's why I wanted to bring you out it's only fair that you get to hear what's going on with your case your lawyer wants to challenge probable cause in this case you're charged with interference the duties of a public servant you are facing up to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine that's what you're charged with I don't know so I'm going to have them read and we're going to do probable calls to see whether we're going to go forward or not okay stuff that we WR she okay what happened on January 10th 2025 the officers in official uniforms and riding in a mark Patrol vehicle were dispatched through disturbance at a residence in Harris County Texas the officer observed the defendant standing outside the location being told to leave by the resident to which the defendant refused by verbally yelling at the resident in a loud aggressive tone of voice the officer announced themselves and observed the defendant begin to walk away the officer gave the defendant a veral command to put his hands behind his back and the defendant pulled his hand away the defendant refused to comply with verbal commands and the defendant held his arms to his chest as the officer attempted to detain him the defendant continued to refuse additional commands to stop resisting and put hands behind his back he yelled at the officer in aggressive tone and shouted out loud don't let them take me the officer performed a leg sweep and continued to struggle hand from the defendant due to him pulling away the officer began to roll around while on the ground and reached the officer's hands to prevent him from being placed in handcuffs do officer continue to give commands and the defendant Contin to refuse I get it but what's he doing I mean he's walking away that's what they wanted right yeah just losing so your honor in this case to the full D it was the disturbance call and they said they observed him standing outside the above location being told to leave and they observe him verbally refuse and then but then cops get up there and then observed him began to walk away and it says they approached Jones and observed he was in talked in a public place based on a slur speech P size and say that that was in the complete dims your honor and then you know about that behavior but I have my argument prepare judge my argument is exactly what you started to say there's some sort of disturbance somebody's asking him to leave they're yelling and screaming each other police coming up and saying hey I'm the police you can walk away from that all day long my client did walk away from that my client's loud and emotional as you can tell here today you're allowed to walk away emotional yelling screaming even using profanity in this state if you want to then the cops come up to him and suddenly there's an some kind of unfounded allegation of intoxication there's absolutely no facts other than that statement I smell marijuana you look intoxicated because it looks like they W he walked away and the cops didn't want him to walk away and so now they need a reason to arrest him my argument is based on if if he's charged with interference with a public servant that doesn't come until later he has to be lawfully arrested and law or lawfully detained or lawfully with the police before that even occurs walking away when a resident tells you to leave and all you've got in your sworn statement is we identified ourselves as police so what everything that happens after that is fruit of the poisonous tree during the hearing the defense attorney pointed out that Jones had no legal obligation to comply when he was not being lawfully detained according to Terry vers Ohio 392 US1 1968 a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring to justify a detention the officers had no basis to stop Jones Beyond an assumption of intoxication which was unsupported by concrete evidence the judge recognized that the situation escalated only because the officers refused to let Jones leave if they had no valid reason to investigate him further any subsequent resistance was Irrelevant this made the entire arrest unlawful and the judge knew it so they go up and they see that he possibly could be intoxicated so does it go into a potential public INX investigation if it does they need to announce that you can't just walk up to me and say I'm the police stop we don't live in that kind of society I'm the police I need to investigate you so therefore stop all day long I'm the police we're investigating I need you to step aside sir so I can investigate this matter all day long but hey I'm the popo so the so the Reasonable Suspicion we have is they begin to investigate what so a criminal trespass they called as a disturbance and they saw him yelling being aggressive and then as he walked away that's when they saw the the trespass investigation ceases because he's leaving yes or no it's not specified to be a trespass your honor it's specified just to be a disturbance that's what it is okay but it's a trespass that they're investigating a trespass right I mean for all intents and purposes isn't that what it is okay the investigation begins as a trespass investigation because he's there homeowners asked him to leave he's refused to leave so cops come and he begins to leave so at that point all should have ceased but the cops go up to try to yes not well in this case your honor it would be that yes he attempted to leave but once the officers arve so they would still need to investigate to determine if a trespass even occurred to determine you know he's leaving he's walking he's leaving right it's like here let me come and mess with you more that would right so it's like adding fuel to a fire but they still have ground to investigating Furthermore with the further size of possible public intoxication it would give them further grounds to investigate that's because they're going up to to miss one well they're going up to investigate what they saw him refusing to leave and he he only left once they arrived so with maybe potential fear of apprehension that's when he decided to leave which it wouldn't be it wouldn't undercut their ability to investigate what had they had observed happening in front of them regarding that public or that disturbance that they were called about they still need to figure out what happened there and if there was trp to begin with J you can't flee a trespass the way you comply is by fleeing well we don't know was a trespass disturb we don't always the disturbance I'm going to find no problem cause you understand Mr Jones be careful man we have enough drama in this life don't we you don't like to wear orange do you be careful where you go be careful what you do everyone's always up to get you man don't let them all right man good luck unless you hear what happens after hearing both sides the judge ruled that there was no probable cause and ordered Jones to be released under the exclusionary rule established in map versus Ohio 367 us 6431 1961 evidence obtained through unlawful means must be suppressed the officers had no legal standing to arrest Jones for interference when they lacked lawful authority to detain him in the first place the judge even warned Jones to be careful in the future acknowledging that bad policing can make innocent people targets this decision protected Jones from wrongful imprisonment and sent a message against abusive police tactics just like this incident here's a moment when a judge saved a man from corrupt policing I don't we need to have like a workshop on how to WR o man for real you know everything in this office report is conclusory suspicious aloicious you know a Texas man Keon Shaw found himself in court facing charges of fleeing a police officer carrying a potential 6-month jail sentence and a 2 fine the arrest stemmed from an officer's claim that Shaw was driving at an unsafe speed above a 35 mph limit however under Texas Transportation code section 545.351 an unsafe speed must be determined based on specific conditions like weather traffic and visibility not just a vague assertion by an officer the police report failed to specify Shaw's actual speed making the claim conclusory and legally weak Sha soaw you're charged with fleeing a police officer you're facing up to six months in jail and a $22,000 fine we're going to do probable cause you have the rec remain silent anything you say can will be used against you you have the right to have an attorney president if you cannot afford one one will be appointed to you sir yes October 27th 2024 officer was conducting a routine Patrol on eldrich Parkway when he noticed that a v motor vehicle traveling at an unsafe speed exceeding the posted 35 M hour Zone the vehicle then began driving in a suspicious manner by making sudden left turn on the street and immediately parking on the left side of the road when the vehicle noticed the officer's fully marked Patrol vehicle passing it immediately conducted a U-turn and got back on the main road when officer continued to follow the defendant's vehicle the vehicle again conducted a left turn and pulled into an Alleyway when the officer initiated his Emergency Equipment in an attempt to conduct a traffic stop the defendant's motor vehicle passed multiple safe stopping points before finally coming to a stop after traveling .5 miles through a dark and empty parking lot what was he doing wrong the the officer he was originally traveling at an unsafe speed exceeding the speed limit 35 miles he was exceeding that speed limit by how much let me see the gyms if he specified you're hon he did not specify it was just an unsafe speed exceeding the limit and then nothing's unsafe to me and then he uh began driving according to the officer in a suspicious manner making sudden turns and then stopping on the side of the road and then back on the road once the officer passed so anything illegal with that during the hearing the judge quickly recognized the reports flaws the officer's account lacked crucial details like how much Shaw exceeded the speed limit under Texas Transportation code section 5 43.6 a traffic citation must specify the offense clearly ensuring a driver understands what they are accused of yet the officer's report merely labeled Shaw's actions as suspicious without legal backing this raised concerns about racial profiling rather than legitimate law enforcement the judge saw through the weak probable cause and refuse to allow vague accusations to justify the arrest so anything illegal with that you I believe it would just be the speed limit would be the point at which the officer to conclus your statement I don't we need to have like a workshop on how to write ORS man for real you know everything in this officer support is conclusory suspicious aloicious you know is he driving while [Music] black Jud would you allow us just a few minutes to call the officer to assist we don't have an O we're just going off of the let's do this I'm going to have them cuz I want to make sure if we find probable cause that it's really there all right so just hang tight for me we're going to have to do a little deeper dive if you just mind taking a seat for me momentarily okay okay a few moments later okay come on up Mr Shaw so I'm we're gonna do Shaw now since he's yeah all [Music] right okay so Mr Shaw we're back on you um so just because I don't we do so much I tend to forget everything you know um you're charged with fing a police officer you're facing up six months in jail and a $2,000 fine we left off because we were doing probable cause and I had an issue because it seemed like the the cause was kind of conclusory at the time and do you have anything new noge and I agree with the court so okay I'm going to find no prob cause the cas no problem cause be careful when you're out there it's hard enough as it is don't give anyone else the power to even bring more you know trouble on your life all right yes sir all right man good luck the prosecution had no additional evidence to justify the charge seeing this the judge ruled there was no probable cause and dismissed the case the judge warned sha to stay careful on the roads but more importantly he refused to let an officer's vague and conclusory claims dictate the fate of an innocent man if the judge had not intervened Shaw could have faced unjust prosecution based on an officer's assumptions rather than clear legal violations I'm not working on punches here man and and and I understand your honor the officer initially said he responded to a crash call for service which occurred on us50 but then later said the accident occurred on 59 so let me see if I'll check a man was charged with driving while intoxicated after an officer claimed he caused a crash under Texas Transportation code section 550.021 a driver involved in an accident resulting in injury or damage must stop and provide information however the officer's report initially stated the accident occurred on us50 but later changed it to to us59 raising serious credibility issues the judge quickly caught this inconsistency questioning whether the arrest was even valid since us50 is not in Harris County the officer shifting statements suggested possible misconduct this error cast doubt on the entire case putting the officer's Integrity in a question Mr loano come on up 59 going take he do any prior DWI I don't believe he's got any prior of any kind good morning M Lozano sir you're charged of driving while intoxicated you're facing up to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine we are going to do probable cause you have the rec remain silent anything you say Canon will be used against you sir on February 7th 2025 at approximately 10:08 p.m. the officer was dispatched to a major crash on the 200 block of South us50 freeway in Harris County Texas the officer met with other officers at the nearby gas station where they had moved the scene the Real Witness stated she was rear ended by the defendant and was able to put the defendant behind the wheel of the vehicle the officer observed front and damage to the defendant's vehicle and the officer made a contact with the defendant the driver and occupant of the vehicle the officer observed slow speech staggering and disorientation and confusion the center fields of RS were conducted hgn four out of six Walkin turn four out of eight one leg stand three out of four the defendant stated he did not drink any alcohol that day and the defendant was read the DIC and refused to provide a breath specimen a blood was signed and executed Williams the judge sounds like there's no problem cause because us50 is not in Harris County Texas it's what the road they said it happened though where is it is that us50 that's not a sign the dims does say 200 block of South us are you serious do I need to look it up I I don't know GS further says during the scene of the accident which occurred on 200 block of South US 59 Freeway Harris County Texas but Council was correct that before they said he responded to a major crash call for service on the 200 block of South US 50 freeway so they put 50 but then later in the games they just put 59 so they're just two addresses so don't know why that's there but they did say the accident occurred on us59 well that would be a different [Music] story do you have any other evidence that is pointing to that it's at 59 or is at 50 so you're onon the only thing we have is that statement from the officer which states that the accident occurred on 200 block of us59 in Houston Texas 77004 is that what really happened or was it on 50 so that's what I can't explain is the officer put I'm not working on hunches here man and and and I understand your the officer initially said he responded to a crash call for service which occurred on uh us50 but then later said the accident occurred on 59 so let me see if def I'll check the O and see if they clarify in the complete o [Music] and in the r as well the officer says which a curent 200 block of us50 uh Houston Texas 770 is there a four so is 50 it's not it's not in Harris County he switches between 50 and 59 in the offens report yes and we understand all right Joe thank you Jo all right Mr loano be careful out there you know what I mean really just listen to he's he's great the officer claimed the driver showed signs of intoxication listing slow speech and disorientation as evidence under Texas penal code section 49.0 4 a person commits DWI if they operate at the vehicle while intoxicated in a public place the officer also conducted field sobriety tests alleging the driver failed multiple tasks but the driver denied drinking that day the officer then sought a blood warrant after the driver refused a breath test but the contradictory accident location weakened probable cause the judge seeing the flawed report focused on whether the case had legal grounds to proceed without reliable evidence the case appeared built on questionable claims rather than lawful procedure listen to he's he's great he'll help you out whenever you need you know all right man good luck J all right I'll me you my way okay the judge dismissed the case and in this next case a man was pulled over for speeding and officers claimed they saw him trying to hide something near the center console based on this they ordered him and his passenger out of the vehicle as the passenger stepped out the officer then claimed to have seen a plastic bag with a green leafy substance that smelled like marijuana however there was no clear indication in the report that the bag was directly tied to the driver under Florida statutes section 89313 mere proximity to a controlled substance is not enough to establish possession there must be EV evidence that the accused knew of its presence and had control over it the defense attorney pointed out that the passenger was the one who ran away which made it more likely that the marijuana belonged to him rather than the driver the report failed to specify where exactly the drugs were found or whether they were in the driver's immediate control what's going on Judge I'm here on docket for Mr Nathan Ria judge I'm seeing if you'll revisit probable cause in this case you said Ria yes sir uh rhe EA judge okay do it today uh yes judge it's my understanding jail maybe jail bucket I see yeah it's jail do all right you ready yes go for so on December 29th 2024 the officer observed the defendant vehicle traveling 91 milph in 50 m hour Zone a traffic stop was ini it and the officer observed the driver leaning over the console trying to conceal something next to the console in the front passenger seat the driver and the passenger did not see the officer as he was standing near the driver window where the officer observed the driver have his hand between the front seat and the center console the officer ordered the occupant out of the vehicle and observed a plastic bag containing a green leafy substance with an odor of marijuana as the front passenger uh exited and the front passenger immediately took off running and the defendant the driver of the vehicle stated he only knew the passenger to be J the weight of the marijuana was 3915 o judge looking at the totality of the circumstances uh the state has not been able to allege enough probable cause that my client knew or intended that there was marijuana in his possession uh I understand that the allegations said that there was some type of furtive movement but my client yielded to law enforcement show of authority um and then gave the gave law enforcement his his identification the passenger ends up leaving law enforcement he stays there um and again there's not enough to establish that he knew or intended that there was weed in his car the allegations also don't you know pinpoint where the marijuana actually was um so this was in this was unannounced to my client judge so he comes up officer comes up to the car and he sees him trying to conceal yes right I don't think that I I believe the allegations say that that's what the officer maybe see to believe but after further review there's nothing that says that that that's definitive or that that's even probable cause for all we know he was rumaging around to give him his ID which he did that's why he got picked up no but he says he's got a plastic bag and he's trying to put a plastic bag behind the console they found his hand between the font SE and the center console they observed his hand in between the console as a plastic bag too it says that they observe that plastic bag to Le substance yes honor and that was after the passenger exited so when they walked up they saw him with his hand in between the console and the front seat where they observed him trying to conceal something so judge in the dims it says quote as the front seat passenger exited the vehicle with his hands up I saw plastic bag containing a green leafy substance the way I'm reading that judge is that's more attributable to the passenger and the mar and the alleged marijuana that was near his person than it was my client again the rumaging around judge I I don't think there's enough of a Nexus to establish that my client yielded to law enforcement show of authority he gave law enforcement his ID while he's standing there submitting to law enforcement show of authority the guy with his hands up with the marijuana that's around him leaves so if anything this should be attributable to the pass say that the weed is the passenger's client not your client that's what you're saying yes and based on the allegations judge there's not enough probable cause that attributes my client knew or intended that marijuana was in his possession when everything just as much points to the to someone who ran away from the cops GS again and then who is the one who's allegedly hiding things is it it's the driver on her which is the defendant the officer said the officer observed the driver have his hand between the front seat and the center console and previously okay wait between the front seat and the center console and the officer said I observed the driver leaning over the console trying to conceal something next to the console in front seat passenger and that's where he observed his hand in the front seat between the front seat pass in the console so the officer observing trying to conceal something and all the dim says in regard to the passenger and the marijuana is that as the front seat passenger exited the vehicle with his hands up I saw a plastic bag containing a green leafy substance smelling a marijuana it doesn't say anything in regard to it being in the solely in the passenger area because it said previously he was trying to conceal something again my my apologies judge if I may he's actively trying to seal a plastic bag your honor so with this situation when we were briefly speaking allegedly this driver and passenger don't know each other but then in this situation should this person the defendant be pulled over for speeding one would think he'd keep his hands T and two and not be trying to conceal something so that's where we're at and if you didn't know that the didn't know the passenger didn't know that they had the marijuana didn't know anything about marijuana why are you concealing why aren you keeping your hands attend to the officers claim that the driver was concealing something was used as justification for further investigation but the judge wasn't convinced under Florida case law furtive movements alone are not enough to establish probable cause unless they are combined with other clear evidence of a crime the officer's report was vague and didn't explain exactly where the marijuana was found in relation to the driver's supposed movements if the driver had truly been trying to hide a plastic bag the report should have specified that officers found drugs in the same spot he was allegedly reaching for instead all the report said was that they saw marijuana as the passenger exited the judge called this out saying it's not that hard to write in the report I saw weed where I found his furtive movements without a clear link between the driver and the drugs the state's case was weak judge anytime somebody's driving again I think there's a reasonable inference that goes just as much to my client was trying to go through his belongings give law enforcement the the correct identification so that he could submit to law enforcement show of authority again it just because it says concealed doesn't mean that there's enough allegations that actually substantiate that anything was concealed if anything no but is that enough for him to continue and to investigate further right his allegation is I come up to the car and I actively see someone trying to conceal something so at that point I'm going to investigate further my issue is not law enforcement had had the right to further investigate the case we understand that my client was feeding judge my issue though is that they're saying that um the front seat passenger is getting out of the vehicle and then he sees weed as the front seat passenger gets out my client is already where so who do they both have weed is that what is that what happened here do they both end up my understanding judge is that there's enough probable cause that actually goes toward the p passenger being in possession of did they find weed where he was trying to conceal whatever he was trying to allegedly conceal the allegations are not clear about that judge which is why admitt they are not clear about that because all it says is that as the front SE uh front seat passenger exited they observe the plastic bags but for previously they did say where it does not say your honor that sucks then write a better report it does but they did say concealing something I need to know where is is the weed in the front seat passenger there are enough affirmative links still because he to oper of the vehicle and is been his wing SP and they saw the previous furtive movements being made to draw the inference of Bala enough affirmative links between him and the Contraband for a cause I don't work on hunches it's not it's not a hunches here I mean it's not that hard to write in the report well I saw weed where I found his furtive movements you know yes they didn't clarify that but they did too bad so that sorry I will say your honor this did just happen two days ago if we could wait to get the offense report maybe he articulated it no I mean I I you know he's in custody I don't want to wait two days cuz he's in custody if he was on bond perhaps but he's in custody he's in jail just sitting there you know I'm with you okay thank you judge since the driver was still in custody the judge wasn't willing to wait for a better report under Florida rules of criminal procedure a person in custody must have a determination of probable cause within 48 hours or they must be released the judge acknowledged that if the driver were out on bond there might be time to clarify the report but in this case he wasn't going to let someone sit in jail based on weak allegations he ultimately sided with the defense making it clear that law enforcement needed to do better if they wanted to justify keeping someone locked up when you think you've seen it all here's a crazy incident where cops wants to destroy someone listen you don't need to say a word good morning Mr bio you speak English right yes okay sh all right Mr bio you're charged initially as of it looks like November 7th you picked up an assault of a family member I see now that you picked up a new case as of November 30th you picked up a violation of a bond condition or protective order I don't know which it is all I know is that you picked up a violation case you're facing now another year in jail and a $4,000 fine I haven't done prob so we're going to do that you have the right to remain silent anything you say can will be used against you you have the right to have an attorney president if you cannot afford one the prosecution alleged that Mr bio violated a protective order by going to the residence of a protected individual Mr McWilliams under Texas penal code section 25.07 a person commits an offense if they knowingly or intentionally violate a court issued protective order however the defense quickly pointed out a major flaw the so-called protect residence was not MC Williams home both MC Williams and his ex-wife Shannon confirmed that he had moved out before the alleged violation without this key element the charge had no legal ground officers were dispatched to a residence in Harris County Texas in response to a disturbance the complainant stated that he was locked out of his residence by his ex-wife's new boyfriend complainant went to the residence because his ex-wife had called him and stated that she was going to work when the complainant asked who would be watching their children the ex-wife said a friend complainant then heard defendant's voice in the background and went over to the apartment complaining witness is the same complain you said he heard whose voice the complainant heard the defendant's voice in the background I think that the complainant believed that the defendant would be watching his and his ex-wife's children and that's why he went over to the apartment um complainant is the same complainant from appending AFM and the apartment address where the defendant was staying is listed on assigned order of protection how bad of an were we talking in the original case what happened I think it was a it was a in the face with the Clos fist once twice thce two to three times it looks like okay I can give some excellent background on that that I think they're also still working through on the assault case we issued a protective order I would imagine yes I've got to copy that judge if you and we ordered him did we order him not to have contact with this person yes and but that's not the basis of the new charge and so if we delve into the state's filed information which is also the basis of the allegation he violated um well I imagine you're hearing both kind of in conjunction the new charge PC but also considering the questions of bail with respect to the first charge as well of course um the what's been alleged in the new information is that Mr bio went to the residents of the CW uh Mr MC Williams um as of the date when we first appeared in court the representation was made by both Mr MC Williams and then today the representation was made by the ex-wife of Mr MC Williams who is the dating partner of Mr bio so so he is dating this gentleman's exwife um but she is confirmed to both of us that Mick Williams has moved out of that residence as of the date of the first alleged assault the uh and MC Williams has told them that um they have been unable to reach MC Williams as of recently um but in the rip call information MC Williams confirms I moved out that day and do not live at the address that's at issue in this VP case the in if you look at the filed information in that VP case it's a necessary ingredient of that allegation that Mick Williams live at that address it specifically says it in the last lie are you talking you're saying in the protective order yes no not the protective order in the violation protective order case if you look at the state's filed information in that case you will see the last line is to it he was at the uh complaintants residents but Mr MC Williams doesn't actually live there he moved out actually was not on the Le he's still not supposed to have contact with this person well he's not he he didn't have contact with him what happens is he's at a place that is not Mick Williams address and then Mick Williams angry that he's there still wanting to control his ex-wife comes over there and bust the windows and so that is the what's the window of of his ex-wife's house where Mr what's the ex-wife's name Shannon Shannon Shannon okay so and we both spoke to Shannon a few minutes ago and Shannon has how many kids with Mr B or do they have kids or no so whose kids are they MC Williams MC Williams and Shannon's children okay I think there's two and so what's alleged in the newly filed charging document is that Mr bio went to the residence of MC Williams which there's no PC to believe in he did not go to the residence of MC Williams he went to Shannon's residence MC Williams does not live there stopped living there and and the state can't meet the information and so there's no PC on my argument judges that there's no PC that the state or the officer so in in our case in the assault case the protective order says that he's not supposed to go to this Spring Cyprus the apartment in Spring Cyprus right well contemplating that that's MC Williams's address is that his address yes or no that is no longer his address judge when that was filed um I imagine that was the original apartment but on the day a lot of times they never update it they just put the original apartment where it happened that and they always assume that it's this you know just so that's no longer the add Mr MC Williams moved out of that address on the day of the incident and he told me he moved out I believe that Shannon is the only name on for viol for the violation case where is he alleged to have gone to he went to the address that's listed in the original Mo so he went to the spring the Spring Cypress right that's right okay and but what he's saying is that this person no longer lives there despite the accusations it became clear that Mr bio had not even interacted with MC Williams Texas law requires that probable cause exist for each element of a crime to proceed with charges in this case the prosecution's claim hinged on MC Williams still living at the apartment which he didn't Shannon also confirmed to both the state and defense that McWilliams had moved out making it impossible for Bio to have violated the protective order the judge recognizing the lack of evidence immediately questioned the legitimacy of of the charge well that's what that's what mck Williams told the state and that's what Shannon has told both the state and myself and um and that is what our full understanding is now I know that address is listed in the protective order but what's contemplated by the protective order is don't go to a place where mck Williams lives and mck Williams is not living at this point the problem is is that we also have this address there because he could always go back well may he may not live there maybe he lives there partially maybe he comes and goes what US was he also as a preventative measure so that we don't want you to actually or accidentally bump into this person and that's why we have this there is that he did live there at one time perhaps he may go back he left an article of clothing he left Pizza there whatever it may be well what's really happening is he wants to go back and continue harassing his ex-wife and that is what Shannon has represented I think to both of I wasn't priv to their phone call certainly what was represented to me and what do you want well I want no PC to be found on the violation of protective order charge because an element of that offense that's been alleged is that Mr bio went to the residence of MC Williams MC Williams does not live there it's not his residence so there's no PC to believe that that element is met what do you think um judge I don't know on this matter order that address was PC but the [Music] ACT I will say judge in the charging instrument um the defendant is it does say you know he's not allowed to intentionally or knowingly go to a place specifically described in the order the address in the order that's where he was um but in terms of you the address in the order who was staying the defendant was staying at the address in the order in this original Mo Spring Cyprus the defendant was staying there um so but I personally I will say in terms of PC I'm going to defer to the court on this matter may I just read that little blurb of the information that I think is important for the court to hear may I take a cheat and steal your computer go ahead so do we still have a problem with him trying to communicate though no he didn't want to have any communication this gentleman comes over to the place and starts busting the windows I will say the complainant came to the place where the defendant was staying like he initiated the contact in the situation and what's alleged is and it's the last Clause maybe two Clauses it says a place specifically described in order to which the residence of a protected individual ual namely mark and it should say Mick Williams but it says Mark Williams so it's in order to meet this charging document it would have to be that gentleman's residence and he does not reside there as by his own representation to the state and so I'd ask that and I know it's a very unique situation how do we go forward though if I find no PC how do we go forward now well he's goes back out on bond while we prepare our to the initial charge of assault which I think they've seen quite a bit by way of background about Mr MC how do we know that this isn't going to happen again well I will say I'm not sure where Mr Byer will be staying up if he were to get out on bond but the um witness Shannon she is no longer living in her apartment as of tomorrow so that address will no longer it won't even belong to any of them as of tomorrow judge fer wasn't fooled by the prosecution's weak arguments under Texas code of criminal procedure section 17.15 bail decisions must consider the safety of the community and the likelihood of reoffending the judge noted that MC Williams himself had been the aggressor breaking windows and escalating the situation instead of blindly siding with the state the judge saw through the inconsistencies and ruled that there was no probable cause for the violation charge preventing an unjust prosecution do we do a no contact with both um I don't see I don't we would do no contact with the witness um with Shannon but I would ask no contact with Mr M you now you are now in a relationship with Shannon right that's right judge just but yes so I've instructed him just let me answer for him judge but he is in a relationship with Shan that's right and he moved here from Hawaii to be with Shannon and the ex-husband takes issue with it and the ex-husband has a very violent history with Shannon and so long term we think there'll be issues with case one even but I understand that that's not really the we're not there yet I think the question is what to do if he is out the I do think obviously no contact whatso ever in any form shape at all with Mr MC Williams is appropriate and that is what existed unfortunately the state can't even reach MC Williams because he doesn't have a phone number that is even good have you run an NC check on this MC Williams guy we have we can see his in County criminal history but I can write a new check on it you see I mean I don't want to incorrect but I think he's got violent history with Shannon but maybe um J when you get to be my age it's hard to remember all the details but I think I recall that but maybe I'm mistaken I don't want to represent something inacurate youve have inherited a dangerous situation and Mr bio you need to be very careful you know if you're in a relationship with someone and they have a another person that's in their life that's like this you could be the bearer of bad times so you need to be very careful you're in a very volatile situation so um you need to be careful going forward because it really could just um could go out of control you may need to get a protective order yourself you know it's very possible that you may need to get a protective order so just be careful you're in good hands you ever have any issues just reach out to Brian we can always help you out as well I'll find no PC on the violation of protective order but just be careful because there are a lot of vindictive people in this life that will trade to make they'll try to make your life a living hell and you being on bond in this case they can do that they can say hey man he's doing this to me he's threatening me he's doing that and if an officer doesn't know any better and they can't they come up and they see that you're have this open Assault they may never take your word they may never even speak to you they'll just put you in County so you got to be careful you know you're in good hands we'll help you out for as much as we can okay um okay so I'll find OPC on the um I think on the violation case um I will not I'm not going to revoke your bond on the original s case Mr bio but you got to be careful man you know and judge I think you should also have him give his updated address to pre-trial would be appropriate okay um and I think that's probably somehow make a notation and and everywhere so that we know where Shannon lives you don't have an address for you know MC Williams so I I don't know how we're going to handle that I think the protective order does say any address where MC Williams does reside so whether or not I guess that'd be a notice question but we know not to go anywhere where he live I I think the issue is whether this other person's going to now be you know okay you understand all that do you have any questions just be careful Life's too short to live either in a 6x9 box or be six six feet under because you got other people that have just you know just be careful all right good luck good luck Mr bio before closing the case the judge issued a serious warning to Mr bio Texas law recognizes that false accusations can lead to wrongful arrests which is why courts must scrutinize evidence before issuing ruling the judge reminded bio that being in a relationship with Shannon put him at risk of further false claims advising him to be cautious and even consider getting his own protective order by refusing to let the prosecution railroad an innocent man judge flasher proved that smart judges can stop corrupt tactics before they ruin lives like And subscribe for more police cam stories watch the next recommended video click to watch now