One of the biggest areas of debate in the legal community is in the area of constitutional rights versus technology. Take for example the 4th Amendment and your home. No doubt that officers cannot just come in and look around, absent consent. But they can stand in the street and look at your house, without any 4A issues. What about the thermal viewers that allow officers to see through the walls essentially to look for excessive heat associated with illicit drug manufacture? The devices only allow the officers to see that which is already being "shown" to those on the street, just taking the invisible and making it visible. And the new laser microphones that allow a user to bounce a beam off of plate glass and convert the vibrations in the glass to audible sound, letting the user hear a conversation inside from outside? As bad as MADD may have been, the war on drugs has done more than MADD, by making it profitable for police to pursue drug dealers, which gives them the money to buy things like thermal imagers and laser microphones. This in turn drives the industry to develop other toys, like button camers, micro-GPS trackers, air sniffers (which can check the air around a home for traces of drug manufacture or use.) The same comes into play in our fight, as people say the framers never pictured EBR's when they wrote in the 2A. And they never imagined television and the internet when they wrote in 1A. These are all great issues to debate over beer, until you walk into a courtroom and have real lives at issue instead of philosophical debate. I guess that's why the only book that it always on my bench is a copy of the U S Constitution. No joke. The statute and rule books change. USCon is always there.
As to the OP, I don't know Texas law, but it sounds like a potential bad choice by the man (I don't know Texas laws), turned into a clusterfu** by the cops.
