Page 97 - Police Officer's Guide 2013

The question is not whether the child would have been more comfortable if she was warmer, but whether
the child was placed in danger of imminent bodily injury or physical impairment due to the cold and the lack of
clothing.

(Ed. note: This opinion provides a good discussion of the type of evidence to be documented by officers
when contemplating a charge on this offense.)

th
Garcia v. State, No. PD-1516-11 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. June 6 , 2012).

PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT TEXAS SUPREME COURT RECOGNIZES A PHYSICAL HARM
EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT

In separate requests, two reporters representing three newspapers asked the Department of Public Safety
for travel vouchers from Governor Rick Perrys security detail. One request was limited to the Governor s out-
of-state trips in 2001 and 2007; the other was not confined to a specific period of travel. Believing all of the
documents to be excepted from disclosure under the Public Information Act (specifically Government Code
section 552.101), DPS sought a ruling from the Attorney Generals office.

Based solely on DPSs letter and inspection of a subset of the responsive documents, the Attorney General
determined that release of the information would place the governor in imminent threat of physical danger.
Accordingly, the Attorney General concluded that the information fell within a special circumstances aspect of
common law privacy that required DPS to withhold the submitted information in its entirety under Government
Code section 552.101. The media filed suit in District Court which ruled the information should be released.
This was affirmed by a Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court took the appeal and reversed the lower courts
holding that there is a common law right to physical safety which creates an exception to the Public Information
Act and also that Government Code section 418.176 applies as an exception to the type of records requested. The
case was remanded for a factual determination as to whether the specific records fall within the newly created
exception.

Texas D.P.S. v. Cox Texas Newspapers L.P., et. al., 343 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2011) Decided July 1, 2011.

FIREARMS SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS TO
ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Responding to a motor vehicle disturbance, a Dimmit officer arrested a suspect operating a four
wheeler after discovering a .22 caliber handgun in the center console. The suspect said the handgun was for
killing coyotes on his ranch hand job. The suspect was also found to possess a controlled substance after a
white powder wrapped in a dollar bill was also found in his possession. He was arrested for unlawfully
carrying a weapon and possession of a controlled substance. His pre-sentence report established that the
suspect was an illegal alien from Mexico who originally entered the country in 2005; returned to Mexico; and
re-entered the country in 2009 about 18 months before his arrest. At the time of his arrest, he had been
employed as a ranch hand at a nearby dairy for about six months.

The suspect was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) for possession of a firearm by an illegal alien. He
admitted he was a citizen of Mexico, present illegally in the U.S. and in possession of a firearm. After his
motion to dismiss was denied, the suspect entered a conditional guilty plea so as to allow an appeal of his ten
month sentence to be followed by three years supervised release. On appeal, the suspect argued that his
conviction violated the Second Amendment right of the people to bear arms.

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 90 2013 Edition