Cir.2000); United States v. Dortch, 199 F.3d 193, 200 (5th Cir.1999). 34 . Brigham, 382 F.3d at 512. 35 . Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 63; Davis, 947 S.W.2d at 245 n. 6; Freeman v. State, 62 S.W.3d 883, 888 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001, pet. ref'd); see also Smith v. State, 840 S.W.2d 689, 692 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, pet. ref’d); Petty v. State, 696 S.W.2d 635, 638-39 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985, no pet.); 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.3(c), at 378-79, 381, 383 (4th ed.2004) (noting routine computer check on driver serves objectives related to reason for stop in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate vehicles on public roads). 36 . Kothe, 152 S.W.3d at 64 n. 36 (citing United States v. Zabalza, 346 F.3d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir.2003)); cf. Freeman, 62 S.W.3d at 888 (<HOLDING>). 37 . See, e.g., Duff v. State, 546 S.W.2d
holding when both real property and contract rights are assigned assignee must both record under the real estate laws and file pursuant to article 9 holding officers request to see both drivers and passengers licenses and questioning of both as to destination and purpose of trip not unreasonable holding defense applicable to both types of claims holding that testimony was both speculative and conclusory holding that the reference to any court encompasses both state and federal courts