Page 46 - SEPT OCTOBER 2019_PJ - Final_Neat

location or length of time that Taylor’s vehicle interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning,
was parked created the type of “hazard” or traffic is not overbroad because it does not reach a
impediment amounting to a public safety concern. substantial amount of constitutionally protected
Nor does the City demonstrate that delaying a speech, in that it applies only to a limited number
search would result in “injury or ongoing harm to of people whose communications have been
the community.” To the contrary, at the time of the restricted by a judge through a bond or protective
search, Taylor’s vehicle was lawfully parked in a order, and it prohibits only communications that
proper parking location, imposing no safety risk are intentionally or knowingly made in a
whatsoever. Because the purpose of chalking is to threatening or harassing manner towards
raise revenue, and not to mitigate public hazard, particular protected individuals. We similarly
the City was not acting in its “role as [a] conclude that the statute, as applied to appellant’s
community caretake[.]” conduct, is not impermissibly vague because the
plain statutory terms are such that they would
For the reasons above, we REVERSE the district
afford a person of ordinary intelligence a
court’s order granting the City’s motion to dismiss
reasonable opportunity to know that his course of
and REMAND for further proceedings consistent
conduct would be prohibited. Accordingly, we
with this order.
will affirm the court of appeals’s judgment
Taylor v. City of Saginaw, No. 17-2126, 6 th upholding appellant’s conviction.
Circuit Court of Appeals, April 22, 2019. Wagner v. State, No. PD-0659-15, Tex. Crim.
App. Feb. 14, 2018.

PEN. CODE SECTION 25.07 IS
CONSTITUTIONAL. SEARCH & SEIZURE – AFFIRMATIVE
LINK – CHECKPOINTS – STOP & FRISK.
In this case, we consider the constitutionality of
Penal Code Section 25.07(a)(2)(A). Under that Bus stop search.
statute, the State may prosecute an individual who
has intentionally or knowingly communicated in a We REVERSE the district court’s decision to
“threatening or harassing manner” with another grant Defendant–Appellee Morris Wise’s motion
person in violation of a judicially issued protective to suppress.
order or bond condition.
Wise was traveling on a Greyhound bus when
Wagner, appellant, was charged and convicted police officers Performed a bus interdiction at a
under that statute after a jury determined that he Conroe, Texas bus stop. Officers boarded the
communicated with his estranged wife, Laura, in a Greyhound, and Wise aroused an officer’s
harassing manner in violation of a protective order suspicion. The officer questioned Wise about his
that had been issued against him for her protection luggage. Two pieces of luggage were stored in the
due to a history of family violence. The court of luggage rack above Wise’s head. Wise claimed
appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction on direct only one piece of luggage as his own; no one
appeal over his challenge to the statute’s claimed the second piece. The officers removed
constitutionality on overbreadth and vagueness the unclaimed article from the bus, and they
grounds under the First and Fourteenth determined that the luggage contained cocaine.
amendments to the federal Constitution. We agree The officers asked Wise to leave the bus. He
with the court of appeals that the statute, if complied. Off the bus, officers asked Wise to

42 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal