Carpenter & Associates, PC TX

Directions Website Contact the practice

Carpenter & Associates, PC TX Former military, police, prosecutors, have come together to give you a powerhouse legal team.

Former military, police, prosecutors, have come together to give you powerhouse and strategic legal help in family, criminal, business, real estate, personal injury and estate planning.

10/09/2026

Founders think investors start with the pitch deck. They don’t. They start with your legal infrastructure.

Before anyone looks at your numbers, they look at the cap table, the operating agreement, the existing contracts, whether your IP is actually filed, and whether the ownership structure is clean and unambiguous.

That’s what “house in order” really means.

If you’re looking to scale your business, ask yourself: is your legal house in order before you sit across from an investor? If the answer is no or I’m not sure, call us today. Our experienced business law team can help you rest easy on the idea of growth and business desirability. 🤝

Do Police Need a Warrant to Search Flock Camera Data? A DFW Case Could Define the Rules in TexasPublished: October 6, 20...
10/08/2026

Do Police Need a Warrant to Search Flock Camera Data? A DFW Case Could Define the Rules in Texas
Published: October 6, 2026

The Fifth Circuit is considering whether police violate the Fourth Amendment when they search Flock license-plate camera databases without a warrant. A Dallas-Fort Worth robbery case could help define the rules for digital vehicle tracking across Texas.

Automated license-plate readers have become a familiar part of the landscape in Texas. Mounted along roadways, parking areas, neighborhoods and commercial corridors, the cameras can photograph passing vehicles and record information such as license-plate numbers, vehicle make and model, color, distinguishing features, and the time and location of the sighting.

A single photograph of a license plate on a public road may not sound particularly intrusive. But what happens when thousands of cameras feed those observations into a searchable database that allows investigators to reconstruct where a vehicle has traveled?

That question is now squarely before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a case arising from Dallas-Fort Worth.

On October 5, a Fifth Circuit panel heard arguments over whether law enforcement's warrantless use of Flock Safety's automated license-plate reader database constituted a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. The outcome could become one of the most important digital-privacy decisions affecting Texas law enforcement in years. Courthouse News

The DFW Case: United States v. Brownlee
The case involves Charles Brownlee, who was convicted in connection with a series of armed robberies of cash stores in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

According to reporting on the Fifth Circuit argument, investigators used the Flock database after witnesses described a getaway vehicle. Officers searched for vehicles matching that description, identified an SUV that had appeared near several robbery locations, and then used the database to determine where that vehicle could be found.

Brownlee's attorneys argue that this went beyond an officer simply observing a license plate on a public street. Instead, they contend that investigators used a powerful database to retrospectively analyze a vehicle's movements and identify a suspect who was not known when the search began.

The federal government argues that motorists generally have no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements openly visible on public roads and that Flock records only intermittent sightings as vehicles pass particular cameras. During oral argument, Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod questioned how traditional rules concerning publicly observable activity should apply when modern technology can collect and analyze enormous amounts of information almost instantaneously.

The Fifth Circuit has not yet ruled in Brownlee. Oral argument is only one stage of the appeal, and questions from the judges should not be treated as predictions of the eventual result.

But the legal issue is substantial.

The Fourth Amendment Problem: One Camera Versus an Entire Database
The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable governmental searches and seizures.

Historically, courts have generally held that a person traveling on a public road does not have a reasonable expectation that his vehicle, license plate or movements will remain completely private. A police officer standing beside a highway can observe a car drive past. An officer ordinarily does not need a search warrant merely to look at a license plate visible to everyone else.

Technology complicates that analysis.

There is a major practical difference between an officer observing one vehicle at one intersection and a computer searching thousands of cameras to determine where that vehicle has traveled over days or weeks.

The constitutional question increasingly becomes one of aggregation.

Information that is individually public can potentially reveal remarkably private information when collected, stored and analyzed at scale. A sufficiently detailed travel history could reveal where someone works, worships, receives medical treatment, spends the night, associates with others or regularly visits.

That distinction is at the heart of the current fight over automated license-plate readers.

The Fifth Circuit Has Already Approved a Narrower License-Plate Reader Search
Brownlee does not arrive on a blank slate.

In March, the Fifth Circuit decided United States v. Porter, No. 25-60163. There, police in Gautier, Mississippi, used an automatic license-plate reader system in connection with a vehicle associated with a man who had an outstanding aggravated-assault warrant.

The Fifth Circuit held that the use of the license-plate reader in that case did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search and therefore did not require a warrant.

Importantly, however, the court emphasized the relatively limited nature of the system. The local department reportedly had no more than approximately 10 cameras, and the technology supplied periodic vehicle sightings rather than a comprehensive record capable of continuously following an individual's movements. The court distinguished that information from more detailed forms of digital location tracking.

That distinction may prove critical in Brownlee.

The question is no longer simply whether police may receive an alert when a wanted vehicle passes a camera. It is whether a much larger network may be queried retrospectively to identify and reconstruct the travels of a vehicle without first obtaining judicial authorization.

The Supreme Court Has Been Increasingly Protective of Digital Location Information
The Supreme Court has also been confronting the consequences of increasingly sophisticated location technology.

Most recently, in Chatrie v. United States, decided June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court considered law enforcement's acquisition of Google Location History information through a geofence warrant.

The Court held that obtaining the defendant's digital location information constituted a Fourth Amendment search. The Court emphasized that modern location information can reveal deeply personal associations and activities and rejected the idea that a relatively short period of digital tracking necessarily falls outside Fourth Amendment protection. The Court remanded additional issues concerning the warrant itself.

Chatrie does not hold that Flock searches are unconstitutional. Cellphone location information and automated license-plate records are different technologies.

But the decision reinforces an increasingly important constitutional principle: courts may consider not merely whether an individual piece of information could have been observed in public, but what modern technology allows the government to learn when enormous quantities of location information are collected and analyzed together.

Another Federal Court Just Suppressed Evidence Obtained Through Flock
The issue became even more significant last week.

On October 1, U.S. District Judge Sara E. Hill of the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled in United States v. Melisa Susan Kyle that a warrantless search of historical vehicle-location information violated the Fourth Amendment.

According to the ruling as reported, an officer searched systems including Flock and obtained more than 50 vehicle-location records spanning approximately a month and multiple states. Judge Hill concluded that the breadth of the historical tracking crossed the constitutional line and ordered evidence resulting from that search suppressed. News Talk WBAP 820 AM and 93.3 FM

That ruling is significant, but its legal effect should not be overstated.

An Oklahoma federal district court does not establish binding precedent for Texas courts, and the decision does not invalidate Flock systems nationwide. It also involved materially different facts from the Fifth Circuit's decision in Porter.

What it demonstrates is that federal courts are beginning to wrestle with a critical distinction: At what point does a collection of ordinary public observations become a constitutionally significant record of a person's movements?

Texas Is Already Reconsidering Flock's Expansion
The judicial debate is occurring at the same time Texas officials are reconsidering the state's use of the technology.

In September, the Texas Department of Transportation stopped issuing new permits for Flock cameras and similar automated license-plate readers along state roads at the direction of Governor Greg Abbott. The freeze does not automatically remove cameras already operating along state rights-of-way, including hundreds operated by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Texas had also previously moved to restrict state funding for additional Flock cameras amid concerns about privacy, oversight and alleged misuse of the technology.

That means the debate is taking place simultaneously in the courts, law-enforcement agencies and state government.

What This Means for Texas Clients
For Texas criminal cases, Porter remains important Fifth Circuit precedent. A defendant cannot simply argue that any use of a license-plate reader automatically violates the Fourth Amendment.

The details of the search matter.

A real-time alert from a limited group of cameras may be constitutionally different from a retrospective search of a large network capable of revealing weeks of travel. Relevant questions can include how many cameras were searched, how much historical data was examined, how long records were retained, which agencies supplied the data, what search terms investigators used, whether investigators already had a known suspect, and whether a warrant or other judicial authorization existed.

For defense attorneys, that makes discovery concerning the actual surveillance process increasingly important. For law-enforcement agencies and municipalities, it makes access controls, retention policies, audit trails, search justification and warrant procedures increasingly significant.

For ordinary Texans, the issue is broader than whether a camera can photograph a license plate.

The emerging constitutional question is whether the government may turn thousands of otherwise ordinary observations into a detailed map of someone's life without first demonstrating probable cause to a judge.

The Fifth Circuit's eventual decision in Brownlee may tell us much more about where that line lies.

The Law Is Trying to Catch Up With the Technology
The Fourth Amendment was written centuries before smartphones, artificial intelligence, cloud databases or automated license-plate readers existed.

Its central protection, however, remains the same: determining when government investigation becomes sufficiently intrusive that judicial oversight is required.

Flock technology can provide law enforcement with powerful investigative tools. It can also create capabilities that would have been practically impossible only a generation ago. Courts are now being asked to determine whether constitutional rules developed when surveillance required actual human observation still work when a computer can search millions of recorded vehicle movements in seconds.

For Texas, that is no longer a hypothetical issue.

It is being litigated now—through a case that began here in Dallas-Fort Worth.

Carpenter & Associates monitors developing decisions affecting criminal investigations, constitutional rights and the use of emerging technology in Texas courts. If you are facing a criminal investigation or case involving digital evidence, automated license-plate readers, cellphone-location evidence, search-and-seizure issues or a motion to suppress, the legal consequences can depend heavily on the specific manner in which the evidence was obtained.

Contact Carpenter & Associates to discuss your situation and the legal options available under Texas and federal law. 972-455-8700, www.carplawfirm.com

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The Brownlee appeal remains pending as of October 6, 2026, and the governing law may continue to develop.

10/08/2026

If you need help legally amending any or all od the above, we’re your firm. 👊 You hire us for the service, and even more importantly the peace of mind.

10/07/2026
10/06/2026

Call us today for a complimentary divorce consultation. 972•455•8700

10/05/2026

Helping others is our calling. Satisfied, safe, well-represented clients is not just a goal; it’s the standard. 💯

10/04/2026

Small Business Help and Guidance!!

Former military, police, prosecutors, have come together to give you a powerhouse legal team.

 # Halloween and Child Custody in Texas: Why October 31 Causes So Many Parenting Disputes**By Carpenter & Associates, PC...
10/04/2026

# Halloween and Child Custody in Texas:
Why October 31 Causes So Many Parenting Disputes

**By Carpenter & Associates, PC**

Costumes. Candy. School parties. Haunted houses. Neighborhood trick-or-treating.

For children, Halloween can be one of the most anticipated nights of the year.

For divorced or separated parents, however, October 31 can become something very different: **a custody fight waiting to happen.**

Every fall, family-law attorneys encounter parents arguing over questions that seem simple until two households are involved:

Who gets the children for Halloween?

Who takes them trick-or-treating?

Who chooses the costumes?

What happens if Halloween falls during the other parent's possession?

Can one parent pick the children up for a few hours?

What if both parents want to attend the same school or neighborhood event?

And perhaps the most frustrating question of all:

**Why doesn't the custody order say anything about Halloween?**

That last question explains much of the problem.

# # Halloween Is Important—but Texas Custody Orders May Not Treat It as a Holiday

Texas family law generally uses the terms **conservatorship, possession, and access** rather than simply "custody" and "visitation."

The Texas Standard Possession Order contains specific provisions governing several important holidays and special occasions. Thanksgiving and Christmas receive detailed treatment. Mother's Day and Father's Day are addressed. A child's birthday receives special treatment as well.

But Halloween is different.

**Halloween is not one of the holidays specifically allocated in the Texas Standard Possession Order.**

That means that unless the parents' particular court order contains a Halloween provision, October 31 will ordinarily fall under whatever possession schedule would otherwise apply on that day.

Texas law also encourages parents to exercise possession at times they mutually agree upon in advance. When they cannot agree, however, the specific terms of the court's possession order control. See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 153.311–153.314.

And that is where problems begin.

# Why Are Halloween Custody Disputes So Common?

Halloween creates something of a perfect storm for divorced and separated parents.

It combines an emotionally important childhood event with a fixed calendar date, relatively short celebration window, school schedules, neighborhood traditions, competing family expectations, and—in many cases—a custody order that says absolutely nothing about Halloween.

Several factors make these disputes particularly frequent.

# # 1. Halloween Cannot Really Be Moved

Many parenting activities are flexible.

A birthday dinner can sometimes happen the day before.

Christmas celebrations can occur on Christmas Eve or December 26.

A family can celebrate Thanksgiving on Friday.

Halloween is considerably harder to recreate.

Trick-or-treating generally happens on **October 31**, during a relatively narrow period in the evening.

A parent who misses those two or three hours may feel that he or she has missed Halloween entirely.

This creates a scarcity problem.

Both parents want the same children, at the same time, on the same evening.

And unlike many other holidays, there may be no court-ordered provision telling them who gets it.

# # 2. Halloween Creates Powerful Family Traditions

Parents sometimes underestimate how emotionally significant traditions become during a custody case.

Before separation, the family may have spent years:

- carving pumpkins together;
- decorating the house;
- choosing costumes;
- attending a particular church festival;
- visiting grandparents;
- participating in a school carnival;
- trick-or-treating in the same neighborhood; or
- taking annual Halloween photographs.

Divorce changes the family structure, but it does not immediately erase those expectations.

Both parents may want to preserve the tradition.

More importantly, both may believe that **they** are the person responsible for preserving it.

A disagreement that appears to be about two hours of trick-or-treating may therefore actually represent something much larger psychologically:

**Who gets to continue being part of the child's childhood traditions?**

That makes Halloween disputes unusually emotional.

# # 3. Halloween Often Falls on a School Night

Halloween moves through the days of the week from year to year.

When it falls Monday through Thursday, possession schedules can become particularly complicated.

One parent may have the children after school.

Another may have a Thursday possession period.

There may be extracurricular activities.

Children still have school the next morning.

Trick-or-treating may not begin until after dark.

Parents may disagree about bedtime, homework, how late the children should stay out, transportation, or where the children should spend the night.

What begins as:

*"Can I take them trick-or-treating?"*

can quickly become:

*"When are you returning them?"*

followed by:

*"The order says I have possession."*

And suddenly a Halloween disagreement becomes a legal dispute.

# # 4. The Best Trick-or-Treating Neighborhood May Be at the Other Parent's House

Halloween is unusually location-dependent.

Children may want to trick-or-treat with their school friends.

One parent's neighborhood may have a major community event.

Grandparents may traditionally participate.

A subdivision may organize a block party.

The child's best friend may live near one parent.

This means the disagreement is not always simply about **which parent gets possession**.

It may also be about **where Halloween happens**.

One parent may technically have possession but the child may desperately want to attend an event near the other parent's residence.

That creates another opportunity for conflict.

# # 5. Costumes Become Surprisingly Serious

Experienced family-law attorneys know something that may sound ridiculous until you have watched parents litigate these issues:

**Costumes can become a custody dispute.**

Who buys the costume?

Who chooses it?

Who gets the costume after Halloween?

Can the child wear it at both parents' events?

Will one parent return it?

Can one parent prohibit a costume?

What if one household objects to Halloween for religious or personal reasons?

What happens if a parent schedules a Halloween event during the other parent's possession?

Individually, these may sound like small disagreements.

In a high-conflict custody case, however, small disagreements frequently serve as proxies for larger disputes over parental authority and control.

The pumpkin is rarely just the pumpkin.

# # 6. Social Media Raises the Stakes

Modern parenting has added another dimension to holiday disputes: social media.

Halloween produces photographs.

Lots of them.

Children in costumes. Family pictures. School events. Neighborhood parties.

For parents experiencing a difficult divorce or custody battle, watching the other parent post pictures of an event they missed can be painful.

Sometimes the conflict becomes less about the child's experience and more about which parent appears to be participating in it.

That dynamic can turn what should be a children's holiday into an adult competition.

Parents should be particularly careful here.

**Your child's childhood should not become evidence in a social-media contest between parents.**

# # 7. New Relationships Can Intensify the Conflict

Halloween may also be one of the first highly visible holidays after separation.

A parent may bring a new boyfriend, girlfriend, fiancé, spouse, or stepchildren.

Suddenly the other parent sees photographs of what appears to be a new family unit taking the children trick-or-treating.

That can produce strong emotions.

Those emotions may be understandable.

But they should not dictate possession decisions.

Family courts are concerned primarily with the **best interest of the child**, not with which parent's feelings are hurt by seeing the other parent's new relationship.

# # 8. Halloween Occurs Just Before the Major Holiday Season

Timing matters.

Halloween arrives immediately before November and December—the most holiday-intensive portion of the family-law calendar.

Thanksgiving is approaching.

Christmas possession is approaching.

Holiday travel is being planned.

School vacations are coming.

Extended-family gatherings are being scheduled.

Parents may already be negotiating Christmas exchanges or arguing about Thanksgiving.

Halloween can therefore become the opening battle in an entire season of possession disputes.

A relatively small disagreement on October 31 can poison negotiations for the next two months.

That is another reason attorneys frequently encourage parents to resolve holiday issues early.

# What Happens If Your Texas Custody Order Doesn't Mention Halloween?

Start with the actual court order.

Not what happened last year.

Not what the other parent says the judge intended.

Not what a friend says happened in their divorce.

**Read the order.**

If Halloween is specifically addressed, follow the order.

If it is not specifically addressed, determine which parent would otherwise have possession under the regular schedule.

The Texas Standard Possession Order provides detailed rules governing regular weekends, weekday possession, vacations, and certain specifically designated holidays. It also recognizes that parents may mutually agree to different possession periods in advance.

That ability to agree is important.

Parents do not necessarily have to choose between:

**"I get Halloween"**

and

**"You get Halloween."**

There are many possible compromises.

# # Parents Can Split Halloween

For parents who live reasonably close together, Halloween can sometimes be shared.

For example:

One parent might attend the school Halloween event while the other takes the children trick-or-treating.

The children might trick-or-treat with one parent from 5:30 to 7:00 and the other from 7:00 to 8:30.

Both parents might attend a community event if they are capable of behaving appropriately around one another.

One parent might have Halloween itself while the other receives a pumpkin patch, fall festival, or Halloween party on another evening.

The important consideration is not mathematical equality.

It is creating a workable arrangement that allows the children to enjoy themselves.

# Consider Alternating Halloween

Parents drafting customized possession orders should consider whether Halloween deserves its own provision.

A simple solution is alternating years.

For example:

**Parent A receives Halloween in even-numbered years and Parent B receives Halloween in odd-numbered years.**

The provision can specify exact times.

For school-age children, an order might provide possession beginning at school dismissal and ending at a particular time that evening—or the following morning, depending upon the circumstances.

Detailed language prevents arguments.

Instead of simply stating:

**"The parents shall alternate Halloween,"**

a carefully drafted agreement might address:

- beginning and ending times;
- school pickup;
- transportation;
- overnight possession;
- whether the holiday overrides normal weekday or weekend possession;
- what happens when October 31 falls on a weekend; and
- whether siblings remain together.

The more predictable the provision, the less opportunity there is for conflict.

# High-Conflict Parents Need More Specific Orders

There is an unfortunate reality in family law:

Some parents can operate successfully under a three-page possession schedule.

Other parents need thirty pages.

The difference is often not the complexity of the children's lives.

It is the parents' ability to cooperate.

When parents communicate well, they may simply text:

*"Do you want to bring them over around six so we can all trick-or-treat together?"*

Problem solved.

In a high-conflict case, that same conversation might generate twenty text messages, accusations, threats to call the police, and an emergency call to each parent's attorney.

For families with a history of significant conflict, specificity is often valuable.

Halloween may be only one example.

Orders can also address:

- Easter;
- Fourth of July;
- children's extracurricular events;
- school picture day;
- family reunions;
- three-day weekends;
- Halloween;
- major religious holidays;
- birthdays of family members; and
- other traditions important to that particular family.

There is no reason every custody order must look identical.

Families are not identical.

# Do Not Put Your Child in the Middle

One of the worst ways to resolve a Halloween dispute is to ask the child:

**"Who do you want to trick-or-treat with?"**

That question may sound reasonable.

It usually is not.

The child may immediately understand the dilemma:

Choosing Mom means disappointing Dad.

Choosing Dad means disappointing Mom.

A child should not have to make that decision.

Likewise, avoid statements such as:

*"Your mother won't let you spend Halloween with me."*

or:

*"Your father is the reason we can't go trick-or-treating."*

Those statements recruit the child into the adult conflict.

Whatever disagreement exists between the parents should remain between the adults.

Let Halloween remain Halloween.

# Police Are Not Halloween Referees

Parents should also be cautious about escalating minor disagreements into law-enforcement encounters.

If there is a genuine emergency or a child is in danger, that is obviously different.

But calling police officers to resolve a disagreement about a costume, an exchange running fifteen minutes late, or which subdivision the child will visit can turn an already unpleasant situation into a traumatic memory for the child.

Imagine being eight years old, dressed as Spider-Man, standing in a driveway while police officers argue with your parents about a custody order.

That is unlikely to become the Halloween memory anyone intended to create.

# Think About How the Dispute Will Look to a Judge

Before sending the angry text, threatening enforcement, or refusing a reasonable accommodation, ask yourself:

**How would this exchange look if a family-court judge read it six months from now?**

Because someday, the judge might.

Family-law cases increasingly involve text messages, emails, parenting-app communications, photographs, and social-media posts.

A parent who repeatedly attempts reasonable compromises may appear very different from a parent who turns every special occasion into a confrontation.

The goal should not be to "win Halloween."

The goal should be to demonstrate that you can make decisions based upon your children's welfare.

# The Best Halloween Custody Rule Is Usually Simple

When possible:

**Plan early.**

Do not begin negotiating Halloween at 4:30 p.m. on October 31.

Look at the calendar weeks beforehand.

Read your possession order.

Talk about the child's school activities.

Discuss costumes.

Determine transportation.

Decide where trick-or-treating will occur.

Put the agreement in writing.

And most importantly:

**Remember who Halloween belongs to.**

It does not belong to Mom.

It does not belong to Dad.

It belongs to the children.

Years from now, your child probably will not remember whether Mom received exactly 92 minutes and Dad received exactly 88 minutes of Halloween possession.

They may remember whether everyone fought.

They may remember sitting in a car while their parents argued.

They may remember being told they had to choose.

Or they may simply remember dressing up as Batman, Wednesday Addams, a princess, a dinosaur, or whatever character was important that year and running through the neighborhood collecting entirely too much candy.

Whenever possible, give them the second memory.

# # Need Help With a Texas Child Custody or Possession Dispute?

Possession schedules can become particularly difficult when court orders are unclear, parents cannot agree, circumstances have changed, or the existing order no longer works for the family.

**Carpenter & Associates, PC** represents parents in divorce, child custody, conservatorship, possession and access, enforcement, and modification proceedings throughout North Texas.

Whether the dispute involves Halloween or something considerably more serious, understanding exactly what your order requires—and what options Texas law provides—is the first step.

**Carpenter & Associates, PC**
**Trial Attorneys | Results Driven Legal Guidance**
**972-455-8700**
**www.carplawfirm.com**

*This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every custody order and family situation is different. Consult a qualified Texas family-law attorney regarding your particular circumstances.*

Address

7920 Belt Line, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX
75254

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Carpenter & Associates, PC TX posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Carpenter & Associates, PC TX:

Shortcuts

Sponsored

Share