Page 39 - May June 2019 TPA Journal
P. 39
public safety. The City does not show that the grounds under the First and Fourteenth
location or length of time that Taylor’s vehicle amendments to the federal Constitution. We agree
was parked created the type of “hazard” or traffic with the court of appeals that the statute, if
impediment amounting to a public safety concern. interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning,
Nor does the City demonstrate that delaying a is not overbroad because it does not reach a
search would result in “injury or ongoing harm to substantial amount of constitutionally protected
the community.” To the contrary, at the time of the speech, in that it applies only to a limited number
search, Taylor’s vehicle was lawfully parked in a of people whose communications have been
proper parking location, imposing no safety risk restricted by a judge through a bond or protective
whatsoever. Because the purpose of chalking is to order, and it prohibits only communications that
raise revenue, and not to mitigate public hazard, are intentionally or knowingly made in a
the City was not acting in its “role as [a] threatening or harassing manner towards
community caretake[.]” particular protected individuals. We similarly
conclude that the statute, as applied to appellant’s
For the reasons above, we REVERSE the district conduct, is not impermissibly vague because the
court’s order granting the City’s motion to plain statutory terms are such that they would
dismiss and REMAND for further proceedings afford a person of ordinary intelligence a
consistent with this order. reasonable opportunity to know that his course of
conduct would be prohibited. Accordingly, we
Taylor v. City of Saginaw, No. 17-2126, 6th
will affirm the court of appeals’s judgment
Circuit Court of Appeals, April 22, 2019.
upholding appellant’s conviction.
****************************************
Wagner v. State, No. PD-0659-15, Tex. Crim.
******************************
App. Feb. 14, 2018.
****************************************
PEN. CODE SECTION 25.07 IS ******************************
CONSTITUTIONAL.
In this case, we consider the constitutionality of SEARCH & SEIZURE – ASSET
Penal Code Section 25.07(a)(2)(A). Under that FORFEITURE LIMITED BY 8TH
statute, the State may prosecute an individual who AMENDMENT
has intentionally or knowingly communicated in a
“threatening or harassing manner” with another Timbs pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to
person in violation of a judicially issued protective dealing in a con trolled substance and conspiracy
order or bond condition. to commit theft. At the time of Timbs’s arrest, the
police seized a Land Rover SUV Timbs had pur -
Wagner, appellant, was charged and convicted
chased for $42,000 with money he received from
under that statute after a jury determined that he
an insurance policy when his father died. The
communicated with his estranged wife, Laura, in a
State sought civil forfeiture of Timbs’s ve hicle,
harassing manner in violation of a protective order
charging that the SUV had been used to transport
that had been issued against him for her protection
heroin. Ob serving that Timbs had recently
due to a history of family violence. The court of
purchased the vehicle for more than four times the
appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction on direct
maximum $10,000 monetary fine assessable
appeal over his challenge to the statute’s
against him for his drug conviction, the trial court
constitutionality on overbreadth and vagueness
May/June 2019 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 35
