Page 45 - January February 2020 TPJ

automobile exception is inapplicable. Here, unlike PEN. CODE SECTION 25.07 IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
Cardwell, the City commences its search on vehicles
that are parked legally, without probable cause or even In this case, we consider the constitutionality of Penal
so much as “individualized suspicion of wrongdoing”— Code Section 25.07(a)(2)(A). Under that statute, the
the touchstone of the reasonableness standard. State may prosecute an individual who has intentionally
or knowingly communicated in a “threatening or
Next, the City attempts to seek refuge in the community harassing manner” with another person in violation of a
caretaker exception. This exception applies “whe[n] . . judicially issued protective order or bond condition.
. government actors [are] performing ‘community- Wagner, appellant, was charged and convicted under
caretaker’ functions rather than traditional that statute after a jury determined that he
law-enforcement functions.” To apply, this function communicated with his estranged wife, Laura, in a
must be “totally divorced from the detection, harassing manner in violation of a protective order that
investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the had been issued against him for her protection due to a
violation of a criminal statute.” We explained that “the history of family violence. The court of appeals
community caretaker exception does not provide the affirmed appellant’s conviction on direct appeal over his
government with refuge from the warrant requirement challenge to the statute’s constitutionality on
except when delay is reasonably likely to result in injury overbreadth and vagueness grounds under the First and
or ongoing harm to the community at large.” Courts Fourteenth
have applied the community caretaker exception in amendments to the federal Constitution. We agree with
narrow instances when public safety is at risk. The City the court of appeals that the statute, if interpreted in
fails to carry its burden of establishing that the accordance with its plain meaning, is not overbroad
community caretaker exception applies in this instance. because it does not reach a substantial amount of
First, on these facts, the City fails to demonstrate how constitutionally protected speech, in that it applies only
this search bears a relation to public safety. The City to a limited number of people whose communications
does not show that the location or length of time that have been restricted by a judge through a bond or
Taylor’s vehicle was parked created the type of “hazard” protective order, and it prohibits only communications
or traffic impediment amounting to a public safety that are intentionally or knowingly made in a
concern. Nor does the City demonstrate that delaying a threatening or harassing manner towards particular
search would result in “injury or ongoing harm to the protected individuals. We similarly conclude that the
community.” To the contrary, at the time of the search, statute, as applied to appellant’s conduct, is not
Taylor’s vehicle was lawfully parked in a proper impermissibly vague because the plain statutory terms
parking location, imposing no safety risk whatsoever. are such that they would afford a person of ordinary
Because the purpose of chalking is to raise revenue, and intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know that his
not to mitigate public hazard, the City was not acting in course of conduct would be prohibited. Accordingly, we
its “role as [a] community caretake[.]” will affirm the court of appeals’s judgment upholding
appellant’s conviction.
For the reasons above, we REVERSE the district
court’s order granting the City’s motion to dismiss and
REMAND for further proceedings consistent with Wagner v. State, No. PD-0659-15, Tex. Crim. App.
this order. Feb. 14, 2018.

Taylor v. City of Saginaw, No. 17-2126, 6 th Circuit
Court of Appeals, April 22, 2019.

********************************************
********************************************
******

Jan./Feb. 2020 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 41