I wasn't able to post earlier for some reason(was getting a server error, could have been local).
Anyways, the traveling thing is easy to understand from both sides of the argument. To us, if we meet the five criterion, we shouldn't have to prove anything else and should be sent on our way. However, to high and mighty DAs, they read the word "presumption" and refer to the description of it located in the Penal Code under the Burden of Proof chapter:
§ 2.05. PRESUMPTION. (a) Except as provided by
Subsection (b),
...
(b) When this code or another penal law establishes a
presumption in favor of the defendant with respect to any fact, it
has the following consequences:
(1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that
give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the
presumed fact must be submitted to the jury unless the court is
satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding
beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and
(2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted
to the jury, the court shall charge the jury, in terms of the
presumption, that:
(A) the presumption applies unless the state
proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the
presumption do not exist;
(B) if the state fails to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the facts giving rise to the presumption do
not exist, the jury must find that the presumed fact exists;
(C) even though the jury may find that the
presumed fact does not exist, the state must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt each of the elements of the offense charged; and
(D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to
whether the presumed fact exists, the presumption applies and the
jury must consider the presumed fact to exist.
This is interpreted to mean that only a jury can make a decision based on the presumption, not an officer. So the officer should still haul you in and let a jury decide your fate. At least this is how attorneys read it.