First of all there is pressure from the Governors office to get people into the gang databases. Laws were created to mandate Law Enforcement participate and create layers and layers of databases throughout the State with no oversight.
These databases are nothing more than hearsay with input from biased individuals, who's training is based on false narratives? Therefore they should never be admissible in court or a law officer on the side of the road as proof criminality.
In order to control the narrative they claim secrecy in an effort to cover their transgressions.
In order to fill the databases we have Motorcycle Profiling at an unprecedented level. Simple Profiling has now turned into pure harassment. Designed to punish the innocent for being a member of a Motorcycle Club.
All the while courts & judges participate with the scheme to take away the rights of the Bikers who are now victims of the law.
Exerts from a recent article by Jim Parks it stated According to holdings in numerous Texas cases, computerized database records retrieved by witnesses that were not “self-generated” by the electronic software, but entered into the database by a human being, are hearsay, therefore inadmissible under Rule 801(d) of the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence if they are related by a declarant quoting from a report or database prepared and entered by another person who is not giving testimony.
That rule plainly states that “Hearsay is defined as a 'statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or being offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted,'” according to language in the holding in Burleson v. State, 429 @ 439-440.
A reader of All For 1 named Roger Joiner came forward offering citations of Texas cases that have reversed the verdict because the evidence offered was deemed by the appeals court as inadmissible as to hearsay.
These are the citations of Texas cases Joiner supplied The Legendary.
“It seems this case revolves around the belief of computer data as hearsay.....In order for computer data to not be considered hearsay, the data must be computer self-generated as part of the computer's internal system (e.g. functions that monitor the status of the system, counting records...), and not data entered by a person. See:
Smith v. State, 866 S.W.2d 731 at 732 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no pet.) (recognizing that computer self-generated data is not hearsay);
Murray v. State, 804 S.W.2d 279, at 283-284 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1991, pet. ref'd) (recognizing computer self-generated data that is the result of a computer's internal operations as being in contradistinction to data that reflects statements placed into the computer by a person, and that the former is not hearsay, where the latter is);
Ly v. State, 908 S.W.2d 598 at 600-601 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no pet. h.) (stating, "A computer self-generated printout that does not represent the output of statements placed into the computer by out of court declarants is not hearsay," and further defining that "computer self-generated data" is such that has "no reliance upon human input.");
Burleson v. State, 802 S.W.2d 429 at 439-440 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1991, pet.
ref'd) (recognizing that a count of computer records is computer self-generated data that is not hearsay whereas the actual content of such records entered by persons is hearsay); Murray, supra ("Often, a computer printout amounts to the feeding back of data placed into the computer by a person; although the data may be in different form than it was when it was fed into the computer, it retains its status as the statement or statements made by a person.").