Page 42 - July August 2020 TPA Journal

search, Taylor’s vehicle was lawfully parked in a of people whose communications have been
proper parking location, imposing no safety risk restricted by a judge through a bond or protective
whatsoever. Because the purpose of chalking is to order, and it prohibits only communications that
raise revenue, and not to mitigate public hazard, are intentionally or knowingly made in a
the City was not acting in its “role as [a] threatening or harassing manner towards
community caretake[.]” particular protected individuals. We similarly
conclude that the statute, as applied to appellant’s
For the reasons above, we REVERSE the district conduct, is not impermissibly vague because the
court’s order granting the City’s motion to dismiss
plain statutory terms are such that they would
and REMAND for further proceedings consistent afford a person of ordinary intelligence a
with this order. reasonable opportunity to know that his course of
conduct would be prohibited. Accordingly, we
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
interpreted in accordance with its plain meaning, empty his pockets. He complied. Wise gave the
is not overbroad because it does not reach a officers an identification card with the name
substantial amount of constitutionally protected “Morris Wise” on it. He also gave the officers a
speech, in that it applies only to a limited number lanyard with keys; one key connected Wise to the

38 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal