Page 89 - Police Officer's Guide 2013

Applying this interpretation to the facts of this case, we hold that Estel did not have reasonable suspicion
that the appellant was illegally driving on an improved shoulder. Estel testified that the car in front of the
appellant slowed down noticeably, and that the appellant then used the improved shoulder to pass the slowed car,
as authorized by Section 545.058(a)(4). Estel did not testify that using the improved shoulder car was
unnecessary to pass the slowing vehicle (i.e., the appellant could have safely passed in the lane used by oncoming
traffic), and the fact that Estel himself was driving toward the appellant strongly implies that the lane used by
oncoming traffic was unavailable for passing. Estel did not testify that using the shoulder to pass was unsafe.
Thus there was no evidence that Estel saw the appellant driving in a manner inconsistent with Section
545.0548(a)(4).

th
Lothrop v. State, No. PD-1489-11 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. May 9 , 2012).

GOLF CARTS ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY
Texas Attorney General Opinion.

Under what circumstances may golf carts be operated in accordance with the Transportation Code?

Transportation Code §551.403 provides for operation of golf carts in master-planned communities, on public or
private beaches, and on public highways with certain speed and distance requirements. No Texas statute or rule
defines the term master-planned community whatever that may be. A golf cart may be operated on a public
highway only if it is operated during the day, not more than two miles from the location where it is usually
parked, and only for the purpose of transportation to or from a golf course.

Our thanks to the Texas District and County Attorneys Association for this information.

Texas A.G. Opinion # GA-0966. Sept. 12, 2012.

Misc offenses
THEFT OF COMPUTERS VALUE OF SOFTWARE INCLUDED IN DETERMINING LEVEL OF
OFFENSE.

A Jury convicted the suspect of felony level theft. The jury charge did not specifically define the term
computer.

A person commits theft if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of
property. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a) (Vernon 2011). The offense is a felony of the third degree if the
value of the property stolen is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000. Id. § 31.03(e)(5).

Chapter 33 of the penal code, entitled Computer Crimes, provides different definitions for the terms
computer, computer network, computer program, computer services, computer system, and computer software.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 33.01(4)-(9) (Vernon 2011). Computer is defined in Chapter 33 as an electronic,
magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high-speed data processing device that performs logical, arithmetic,
or memory functions by the manipulations of electronic or magnetic impulses and includes all input, output,
processing, storage, or communication facilities that are connected or related to the device. Id. § 33.01(4).

Based on the Chapter 33 definition, the convicted suspect argued that the value of the two stolen
computers must be measured without considering the value of software installed on them. The Court of Appeals
rejected this argument.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 82 2013 Edition