TX2: “the impoundment of the vehicle was a task tied to the traffic infraction” and didn’t extend it

Defendant was stopped for a brake light infraction, and neither he nor the passenger had a valid DL or insurance. Thus, impoundment is in order. “Similarly, the impoundment of the vehicle was a task tied to the traffic infraction, and King makes no argument that that task should have reasonably been completed at the time Officer Taylor asked for his consent to the pat-down.” King v. State, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 13052 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth Dec. 8, 2016).

Defendant’s 2009 arrest in Missouri was in the middle of the conspiracy and it would not be revisited on the motion for new trial. The evidence was essentially overwhelming, and this was not just 404(b) evidence considering the time period of the indictment. United States v. Tiangco, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167327 (D.N.J. Dec. 5, 2016).*