{"id":1226,"date":"2019-02-20T12:46:02","date_gmt":"2019-02-20T18:46:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1226"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:57:50","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:57:50","slug":"ex-parte-odom-tex-ct-app-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/02\/20\/ex-parte-odom-tex-ct-app-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Ex Parte Odom (Tex. Ct. App. 2018)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Ex Parte Odom, No. 01-18- 00169- CR (Tex. Ct. App. 2018)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was indicted in Texas state court for failing to update his internet identifiers. Pretrial, Appellant sought from the trial court a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that the identifier statute was not constitutional on First Amendment grounds. The trial court denied the writ, and Appellant then sought review.
\n
\nHolding:\u00a0<\/strong> Court of Appeals of Texas held that the statute was not unconstitutional on First Amendmend grounds: it was subject to intermediate scrutiny, was not overbroad, did not impermissibly infringe on the right to anonymous speech, and did not operate as a prior restraint on speech.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n