the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 784 (Tex.2005) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)); see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). For the purpose of determining if a nonresident defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas, (1) only the defendant’s contacts with the forum are relevant, (2) the contacts must be purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated, and (3) the defendant must seek some benefit, advantage, or profit by availing itself of the jurisdiction. Republic Drilling, 278 S.W.3d at 338-39; Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 (<HOLDING>). A nonresident defendant cannot be subjected
recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest recognizing there are three parts to a purposeful availment inquiry recognizing three exceptions to atwill doctrine holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim recognizing that a letter in which a defendant states that he is interested in three child pornographic videos might be considered an inquiry rather than an order