Page 40 - November December 2019 TPA Journal

has intentionally or knowingly communicated in a Defendant–Appellee Morris Wise’s motion to
“threatening or harassing manner” with another suppress.
person in violation of a judicially issued protective Wise was traveling on a Greyhound bus when police
order or bond condition. officers Performed a bus interdiction at a Conroe,
Texas bus stop. Officers boarded the Greyhound,
Wagner, appellant, was charged and convicted and Wise aroused an officer’s suspicion. The officer
under that statute after a jury determined that he questioned Wise about his luggage. Two pieces of
communicated with his estranged wife, Laura, in a luggage were stored in the luggage rack above
harassing manner in violation of a protective order Wise’s head. Wise claimed only one piece of
that had been issued against him for her protection luggage as his own; no one claimed the second
due to a history of family violence. The court of piece. The officers removed the unclaimed article
appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction on direct from the bus, and they determined that the luggage
appeal over his challenge to the statute’s contained cocaine. The officers asked Wise to leave
constitutionality on overbreadth and vagueness the bus. He complied. Off the bus, officers asked
grounds under the First and Fourteenth amendments Wise to empty his pockets. He complied. Wise gave
to the federal Constitution. We agree with the court the officers an identification card with the name
of appeals that the statute, if interpreted in “Morris Wise” on it. He also gave the officers a
accordance with its plain meaning, is not overbroad lanyard with keys; one key connected Wise to the
because it does not reach a substantial amount of backpack. The officers then arrested Wise.
constitutionally protected speech, in that it applies Wise moved to suppress the evidence that officers
only to a limited number of people whose found in his pockets. Following a suppression
communications have been restricted by a judge hearing, the district court suppressed all evidence
through a bond or protective order, and it prohibits obtained during the bus search. The district court
only communications that are intentionally or found that the officers had established an
knowingly made in a threatening or harassing unconstitutional checkpoint stop. The court also
manner towards particular protected individuals. We concluded that the bus driver did not voluntarily
similarly conclude that the statute, as applied to consent to the bus search.
appellant’s conduct, is not impermissibly vague
because the plain statutory terms are such that they On September 15, 2011, Conroe Police Department
would afford a person of ordinary intelligence a officers stationed themselves at a Greyhound bus
reasonable opportunity to know that his course of stop located in Conroe, Texas, in order to perform
conduct would be prohibited. Accordingly, we will bus interdictions. Bus interdictions typically involve
affirm the court of appeals’s judgment upholding law enforcement officers boarding a bus to speak
appellant’s conviction. with suspicious-looking passengers. The officers
aim to discover individuals transporting narcotics,
weapons, or other contraband. If the officers suspect
Wagner v. State, No. PD-0659-15, Tex. Crim. criminal activity, they ask a passenger for his
App. Feb. 14, 2018. identification and boarding pass; they may also ask
whether the passenger has any luggage with him.
During the interdiction, passengers may leave the
bus. They may also refuse to speak with officers.
SEARCH & SEIZURE – AFFIRMATIVE LINK
– CHECKPOINTS – STOP & FRISK.
That day, five Conroe Police Department officers
Bus stop search. were present at the Greyhound bus stop. Four
officers were dressed in plainclothes—civilian
We REVERSE the district court’s decision to grant clothes that do not include any markings of being a

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