If you EVER get ANY possession busts. Scrub your house. They have the right (and usually do) if they bust you with anything to show up at your door with a warrant to your home. Don't f'around either. Get rid of everything incriminating cause they will check it all.
THEY DO NOT! have a right to search your home simply because you are found with pot outside your home.
WHOA!! This is TEXAS man... Not Soviet Russia!
As far the arresting Officer having a DUTY to take you IMMEDIATLY to a Magistrate...
This is the CASE LAW that will prevail in court.
The seminal case on this subject under Texas State Law is Heath v Boyd,141 Tex. 569; 175 S.W.2d 214; 1943 Tex. LEXIS 370
"Moreover, if Heath's arrest had been authorized by the statutes, his subsequent detention as pleaded proved would make a case of false imprisonment against Boyd. The undisputed facts are that after his arrest Heath rode with the sheriff to the former's car, which he then entered and drove several miles to the courthouse, followed by Boyd. There he was detained in Boyd's office from one to three hours, while Boyd was seeking advice by telephone as to what to do, in the FACE of a plain statutory COMMAND as to [***13] what must be done in all cases of arrest without warrant. Art. 217, C.C.P., 1925, provides, "In each case enumerated in this chapter, the person making the arrest shall immediately take the person arrested * * before the nearest magistrate where the arrest was made without an order." Substantially the same requirement appears in Art. 325, C.C.P., 1925, and Art. 487, P.C., 1925. Presumably, there was a magistrate in Mertzon, the county seat. Yet Boyd offers no reason why he did not take Heath before that official. Neither in his pleadings nor in his testimony does he suggest that a magistrate was not reasonably available, although the arrest and detention all occurred between 8 o'clock in the morning and noon. If he had taken Heath to that official, he could have gotten the information and assistance he was seeking by telephone. He was under NO obligation to seek advice or aid from Johnson. He was under a POSITVE DUTY to immediately seek a magistrate. That such failure, unexcused, makes a case of FALSE IMPRISONMENTt, as a matter of law, is held by all the authorities." Newby v. Gunn et al, 74 Texas, 455, 12 S.W. 67; McBeath v. Campbell, 12 S.W. (2d) 118; Alamo Downs, Inc., et [***14] al v. Briggs (Civ. App.), 106 S.W. (2d) 733 (er. dism.); Box v. Fluitt (Civ. App.), 47 S.W. (2d) 1107; Maddox v. Hudgeons (Civ. App.), 72 S.W. 414 (er. ref.); [**218] Karner et al v. Stump (Civ. App.), 34 S.W. 656; Petty v. Morgan et al (Civ. App.), 116 S.W. 141; Bishop v. Lucy et al (Civ. App.) 50 S.W. 1029; 35 C.J.S., p. 546, sec. 31
It can hardly be reasonably construed that the Legislature intended the accused be taken to jail first, held overnight, then taken to another county in the morning. Notwithstanding other states practices, in Texas, the act of bringing the accused before a magistrate for the purpose of an examination into the sufficiency of the allegations on which their liberty is being restricted is clear.
Booking a person into jail pre-supposes probable cause as absent probable cause, there would be no reason to prepare so complete a record of imprisonment as, at an examining trial, a finding of no probable cause would render the booking procedure unnecessary.
