How to Look Up Someone’s Criminal Record in Texas
You have several options for obtaining someone’s criminal record in Texas:
1. Visit the Sheriff’s Office:
Go to the local Sheriff’s Office in the county where the individual resides or where the offense occurred. They can provide access to criminal records and background checks.
2. Local Court Visit:
Visit the local courthouse where the case was filed. The court clerk can assist you in accessing criminal records. Be sure to know the case number or the full name of the individual.
3. Online Resources:
Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS): The DPS offers an online Crime Record Search (CRS) service where you can request and view criminal history records for a fee.
DPS Crime Record Search.
4. Third-Party Websites:
There are several third-party websites that compile criminal history databases. These sites may require a fee and can provide detailed records.
One example is the Texas Lawyers Directory, where you can initiate a search by filling out the search box provided.
Steps to Perform a Search:
1. Gather the individual’s full name, date of birth, and any other identifying information.
2. Visit the appropriate Sheriff’s Office, local court, or online resource.
3. Follow the instructions to request or search for the criminal records.
4. Pay any applicable fees to access the records.
Instant Court Records Search
Criminal Court Records, Civil Court Records, Traffic Court Records
Federal, State, County & Municipal Sources and Much More!
Participant Index
|
Texas, June 01, 2012 ⚖ Case 4:2012cv00347/218805 In the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the case 4:2012cv00347/218805 involves Irish O'Reilly and BAC Home Loans, N.A. Filed on June 01, 2012, this case pertains to Foreclosure under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Presiding over this matter is Judge Terry R Means. There is no demand for a jury trial. | |
|
Texas, May 17, 2012 ⚖ Case 2:2012cv00298/137248 At the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the legal case 2:2012cv00298/137248 involves InMotion Imagery Technologies, LLC and Imation Corp. Filed on May 17, 2012, this case deals with Patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 271. Judge Rodney Gilstrap is overseeing the proceedings, and it's worth noting that the Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. | |
|
Texas, May 17, 2012 ⚖ Case 2:2012cv00300/137251 The legal proceedings in case 2:2012cv00300/137251 at US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involve InMotion Imagery Technologies, LLC and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Filed on May 17, 2012, this case focuses on Patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 271. Judge Rodney Gilstrap is presiding, and it's notable that the Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. | |
|
Texas, May 17, 2012 ⚖ Case 2:2012cv00297/137247 The legal proceedings in case 2:2012cv00297/137247 at US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involve InMotion Imagery Technologies, LLC and Fujitsu America, Inc. Filed on May 17, 2012, this case focuses on Patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 271. Judge Rodney Gilstrap is presiding, and it's notable that the Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. | |
|
Texas, May 17, 2012 ⚖ Case 2:2012cv00295/137243 In case 2:2012cv00295/137243 within US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, InMotion Imagery Technologies, LLC brings a case against ASUS Computer International, Inc. Filed on May 17, 2012, this legal matter relates to Patent as per 35 U.S.C. § 271. The presiding judge is Rodney Gilstrap, and the Plaintiff has made a request for a jury trial. | |
| Petitioner versus Respondent | |
|
Ivan William Ensminger
More Information |
Director TDCJ |
| [Case # 2012cv00327/137433], [Filed: May 24, 2012] [ General§28 U.S.C. § 2254 ⚖ ] [Judge: Ron Clark, Amos L. Mazzant] >>> More Information |
|
|
Texas, May 17, 2012 ⚖ Case 2:2012cv00299/137250 At the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the legal case 2:2012cv00299/137250 involves InMotion Imagery Technologies, LLC and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions, USA, Inc. Filed on May 17, 2012, this case deals with Patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 271. Judge Rodney Gilstrap is overseeing the proceedings, and it's worth noting that the Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. | |
|
Texas, May 17, 2012 ⚖ Case 2:2012cv00296/137245 The legal proceedings in case 2:2012cv00296/137245 at US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involve InMotion Imagery Technologies, LLC and Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc. Filed on May 17, 2012, this case focuses on Patent based on 35 U.S.C. § 271. Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Roy S Payne is presiding, and it's notable that the Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. | |
| Petitioner versus Respondent | |
|
Inocente Fabian-Penaloza
More Information |
United States of America |
| [Case # 2012cv01697/981185], [Filed: June 04, 2012] [ Motions to Vacate Sentence§28 U.S.C. § 2255 ⚖ ] [Judge: Lynn N. Hughes] >>> More Information |
|
|
Texas, June 04, 2012 ⚖ Case 3:2012cv00207/560128 At the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, the legal case 3:2012cv00207/560128 involves Ismael Perez Vertiz and Sylvia Perez Menefee and Suzuki Motor Corporation and American Suzuki Motor Corporation. Filed on June 04, 2012, this case deals with Personal Injury Product Liability based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability. Judge David C Guaderrama is overseeing the proceedings, and it's worth noting that the Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. More Information about >>> ✅ Ismael Perez Vertiz, ✅ Sylvia Perez Menefee … | |
| Petitioner versus Respondent | |
|
Ignacio Cruz-Jimenez
More Information |
United States Of America |
| [Case # 2012cv00189/981581], [Filed: June 04, 2012] [ Motions to Vacate Sentence§28 U.S.C. § 2255 ⚖ ] [Judge: Janis Graham Jack] >>> More Information |
|
|
Texas, June 06, 2012 ⚖ Case 7:2012cv00179/981293 At the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the legal case 7:2012cv00179/981293 entails Ismael Cruz and Allstate Texas Lloyds. The filing date is June 06, 2012, and this case deals with Insurance as per 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Judge Micaela Alvarez is presiding over this matter, and no jury trial is demanded. More Information about >>> ✅ Ismael Cruz, ✅ Allstate Texas Lloyds … | |
| Petitioner versus Respondent | |
|
Ivory Ray Mitchell
More Information |
Rick Thaler, Director TDCJ-CID |
| [Case # 2012cv00328/218651], [Filed: May 25, 2012] [ General§28 U.S.C. § 2254 ⚖ ] [Judge: Terry R Means] ✅ Rick Thaler >>> More Information |
|
|
Texas, June 20, 2012 ⚖ Case 2:2012cv00358/137912 The legal proceedings in case 2:2012cv00358/137912 at US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involve InNova Patent Licensing, LLC and Cloudmark, Inc. Filed on June 20, 2012, this case focuses on Patent based on 15 U.S.C. § 1126. Judge Caroline Craven, Michael H. Schneider is presiding, and it's notable that the Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. | |
|
Texas, June 20, 2012 ⚖ Case 2:2012cv00364/137918 The legal proceedings in case 2:2012cv00364/137918 at US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involve InNova Patent Licensing, LLC and Earthlink, Inc. Filed on June 20, 2012, this case focuses on Patent based on 15 U.S.C. § 1126. Judge Caroline Craven, Michael H. Schneider is presiding, and it's notable that the Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. | |
|
Texas, June 20, 2012 ⚖ Case 2:2012cv00368/137922 In the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas case 2:2012cv00368/137922, InNova Patent Licensing, LLC files a suit against Lycos, Inc. The filing date was June 20, 2012, and this case concerns Patent under 15 U.S.C. § 1126. Presiding over the case is Judge Caroline Craven, Michael H. Schneider. The Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. | |
|
Texas, June 20, 2012 ⚖ Case 2:2012cv00367/137921 The legal proceedings in case 2:2012cv00367/137921 at US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involve InNova Patent Licensing, LLC and LinkedIn Corporation. Filed on June 20, 2012, this case focuses on Patent based on 15 U.S.C. § 1126. Judge Caroline Craven, Michael H. Schneider is presiding, and it's notable that the Plaintiff has requested a jury trial. | |
Good Morning
I am the petitioner/plaintiff in this case’s Name : LARBI SEMIANI .
I have comment on the System of justice in USA , even as a defendant in case of judgment before the Ca court , and even as being a victim of human trafficking and serious criminal activities , physical and moral tortures , Unfortunately I am deliberately precluded from the equal access to an equal justice .
Incredible true , The ca court requires my appearance in person for an oral hearing , but the US Consular officer refuses to respect the Ca court orders and Ca laws , he rejects the orders and decisions of the Ca Hon Judges , .
In conclusion , I am informed that there is no a visa to enter USA for court trial , oral hearing . But the worst is that The US Consul and DOS Washington dc affirm that the decision of the US Consular in my country is above the Ca courts and Ca hon judges .
The US Consul is the highest Judge who has an immunity that allows him to be above the First amendment to US Constitution , and above all the US Lower laws .
RESULT : Imagin that my case is pended and my case is forwarded to the Ca LEAs for investigations but the problem without my appearance neither the CA court nor the CA LEA can do anything , then my case of judgment not be resolved .
Here is the resum of my comment , I think that there is something wrong somewhere if there is no an error to correct and to respect the nature of justice and nature of litigation . The Obstruction of justice is prohibited by Law but it is authorized only when the victim is / LARBI SEMIANI FROM Algeria.
Comment on the No comment
RE- LARBI SEMIANI
I already sent comment here but i noticed that there is no any other comment to support me . But I continue sending comments as i also need to be heard by the US Citizens , US Gov , and California state courts and Gov agencies .
I am very wondered as what has been done with my case may not be occured because my human and civil rights to be respected of human person then to access for an equal justice as being defendant in case of judgment before the Ca court but Ca court has only heard from petitioner , Hon court has imposed me a case of judgment but it has banned me from hearing and defense then the petitioner was defended and protected , even hon ca court was well informed on all what has been occured to me as a victim but without intervening at least to defend its own credibility as court of justice , incredible true . I had wished to defend the ca court law an d the ca constitution see bills of rights and better to report my case because all the shame is regarding the fradulent nature of litigation and obstruction of justice and violation of the US Constitution , and violation of the universal declarations of human rights .
I don t see what to say more because it is the only case worldwide which occurs .
Respectfully to all who will read my comment.
thanks to all