Page 40 - May June 2020 TPA Journal

or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation has intentionally or knowingly communicated in a
of a criminal statute.” We explained that “the
community caretaker exception does not provide
the government with refuge from the warrant
requirement except when delay is reasonably
likely to result in injury or ongoing harm to the
community at large.” Courts have applied the
community caretaker exception in narrow
instances when public safety is at risk. The City
fails to carry its burden of establishing that the
community caretaker exception applies in this
instance. First, on these facts, the City fails to
demonstrate how this search bears a relation to
public safety. The City does not show that the
location or length of time that Taylor’s vehicle
was parked created the type of “hazard” or traffic
impediment amounting to a public safety concern.
Nor does the City demonstrate that delaying a
search would result in “injury or ongoing harm to
the community.” To the contrary, at the time of the substantial amount of constitutionally protected
search, Taylor’s vehicle was lawfully parked in a
proper parking location, imposing no safety risk
whatsoever. Because the purpose of chalking is to
raise revenue, and not to mitigate public hazard,
the City was not acting in its “role as [a]
community caretake[.]”
For the reasons above, we REVERSE the district
court’s order granting the City’s motion to dismiss conduct, is not impermissibly vague because the
and REMAND for further proceedings consistent
with this order.
Taylor v. City of Saginaw, No. 17-2126, 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals, April 22, 2019.
****************************************
****************************************
**************
PEN. CODE SECTION 25.07 IS
CONSTITUTIONAL.
In this case, we consider the constitutionality of
Penal Code Section 25.07(a)(2)(A). Under that
statute, the State may prosecute an individual who
36 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140
“threatening or harassing manner” with another
person in violation of a judicially issued protective
order or bond condition.
Wagner, appellant, was charged and convicted
under that statute after a jury determined that he
communicated with his estranged wife, Laura, in a
harassing manner in violation of a protective order
that had been issued against him for her protection
due to a history of family violence. The court of
appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction on direct
appeal over his challenge to the statute’s
constitutionality on overbreadth and vagueness
grounds under the First and Fourteenth
amendments to the federal Constitution. We agree
with the court of appeals that the statute, if
interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning,
is not overbroad because it does not reach a
speech, in that it applies only to a limited number
of people whose communications have been
restricted by a judge through a bond or protective
order, and it prohibits only communications that
are intentionally or knowingly made in a
threatening or harassing manner towards
particular protected individuals. We similarly
conclude that the statute, as applied to appellant’s
plain statutory terms are such that they would
afford a person of ordinary intelligence a
reasonable opportunity to know that his course of
conduct would be prohibited. Accordingly, we
will affirm the court of appeals’s judgment
upholding appellant’s conviction.
Wagner v. State, No. PD-0659-15, Tex. Crim.
App. Feb. 14, 2018.
SEARCH & SEIZURE – AFFIRMATIVE
LINK – CHECKPOINTS – STOP & FRISK.
Bus stop search.
We REVERSE the district court’s decision to
Texas Police Journal