1. RIGHT OF PRIOR NOTIFICATION OF CHARGES TO BE USED AGAINST OFFENDER IN COURT Prior notification of charges against an offender in court is provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection clauses. Appellant's argument that he was not notified of the charges brought against him in a reasonable time is covered by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment due process and the equal protection clause. Accordingly, the Fourteenth Amendment provides that advance notice that a criminal charge will follow a substantive offense is not a requirement. What matters is whether the prosecution provided a reasonable opportunity to allow the defendant to defend himself against the charge. Accordingly, in this case the appellant availed himself of the opportunity to defend himself against the charges, therefore the sentence was consistent with the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.2. GROUNDS FOR DETENTION AND SETTLEMENT, SEIZURE AND UNREASONABLE DETENTION The lack of identification documents does not guarantee that an officer will arrest and detain an individual. However, under Texas law, littering is a Class C misdemeanor that may warrant appellant's arrest and detention, as the discarded items weighed less than five pounds. Accordingly, the police officer's suspicion and detention of the appellant are justifiable. However, there have been problems amounting to violations of individuals' rights during detention. Most notable is the fact that officers responsible for detaining individuals always end up investigating matters that are not related to the issue of detention. For example, if the appellant had been arrested for lack of identification documents, he would only have been required to ask him…half of the document…of the evidence provided on appeal (chain of command objections). was distinguished from the exception raised during the trial (exception on the admissibility of the testimony of the State forensic chemist). It is worth noting that this decision is consistent with the court's decision in Guevara v State, 97 S.W.3d 579, 583 (Tex.Crim. App. 2003). Also Tex. R.App. P.33.1(a); Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(1); and Heidelberg v. State, 144 SW 3d.535, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) which emphasized that an objection raised by the defendant at trial should be similar to one raised by him/her at appeal. Works CitedFusco, T.J.D. (1994). Permissibility under the Fourth Amendment of police detaining a motorist following a lawful arrest for a traffic violation to investigate matters unrelated to the crime. American Law Reports 118 ALR Fed. 567