Page 60 - March April 2020 TPA

PEN. CODE SECTION 25.07 IS SEARCH & SEIZURE – AFFIRMATIVE LINK –
CONSTITUTIONAL. CHECKPOINTS – STOP & FRISK.
In this case, we consider the constitutionality of Bus stop search.
Penal Code Section 25.07(a)(2)(A). Under that We REVERSE the district court’s decision to grant
statute, the State may prosecute an individual who Defendant–Appellee Morris Wise’s motion to
has intentionally or knowingly communicated in a suppress.
“threatening or harassing manner” with another Wise was traveling on a Greyhound bus when
person in violation of a judicially issued protective police officers Performed a bus interdiction at a
order or bond condition. Conroe, Texas bus stop. Officers boarded the
Wagner, appellant, was charged and convicted Greyhound, and Wise aroused an officer’s
under that statute after a jury determined that he suspicion. The officer questioned Wise about his
communicated with his estranged wife, Laura, in a luggage. Two pieces of luggage were stored in the
harassing manner in violation of a protective order luggage rack above Wise’s head. Wise claimed
that had been issued against him for her protection only one piece of luggage as his own; no one
due to a history of family violence. The court of claimed the second piece. The officers removed the
appeals affirmed appellant’s conviction on direct unclaimed article from the bus, and they
appeal over his challenge to the statute’s determined that the luggage contained cocaine. The
constitutionality on overbreadth and vagueness officers asked Wise to leave the bus. He complied.
grounds under the First and Fourteenth Off the bus, officers asked Wise to empty his
amendments to the federal Constitution. We agree pockets. He complied. Wise gave the officers an
with the court of appeals that the statute, if identification card with the name “Morris Wise”
interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning, on it. He also gave the officers a lanyard with keys;
is not overbroad because it does not reach a one key connected Wise to the backpack. The
substantial amount of constitutionally protected officers then arrested Wise.
speech, in that it applies only to a limited number Wise moved to suppress the evidence that officers
of people whose communications have been found in his pockets. Following a suppression hearing,
restricted by a judge through a bond or protective the district court suppressed all evidence obtained
during the bus search. The district court found that the
order, and it prohibits only communications that
officers had established an unconstitutional checkpoint
are intentionally or knowingly made in a
stop. The court also concluded that the bus driver did
threatening or harassing manner towards particular
not voluntarily consent to the bus search.
protected individuals. We similarly conclude that On September 15, 2011, Conroe Police Department
the statute, as applied to appellant’s conduct, is not officers stationed themselves at a Greyhound bus stop
impermissibly vague because the plain statutory located in Conroe, Texas, in order to perform bus
terms are such that they would afford a person of interdictions. Bus interdictions typically involve law
ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to enforcement officers boarding a bus to speak with
know that his course of conduct would be suspicious-looking passengers. The officers aim to
prohibited. Accordingly, we will affirm the court discover individuals transporting narcotics, weapons,
of appeals’s judgment upholding appellant’s or other contraband. If the officers suspect criminal
activity, they ask a passenger for his identification and
conviction.
boarding pass; they may also ask whether the passenger
has any luggage with him. During the interdiction,
Wagner v. State, No. PD-0659-15, Tex. Crim. App.
passengers may leave the bus. They may also refuse to
Feb. 14, 2018.
speak with officers.
That day, five Conroe Police Department officers were
present at the Greyhound bus stop. Four officers were

March/April 2020 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 53