Ex parte James Burke Jarreau

Summary

In this dissenting opinion, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez would hold that the phrase “unsafe for self-medication” in the Texas Dangerous Drug Act is facially unconstitutionally vague. She concludes that the phrase fails to provide ordinary people fair notice of prohibited conduct and does not establish adequate guidelines against arbitrary enforcement. She would reverse the denial of James Burke Jarreau’s pretrial habeas application and remand for dismissal of the indictment.

Holdings

1. The dissent would hold that the catch-all unsafe for self-medication portion of the definition of a dangerous drug is facially unconstitutionally vague because it does not reasonably inform an ordinary person what drugs or devices fall within the prohibition.
2. The dissent would hold that unsafe for self-medication fails to provide law-enforcement officers with determinate guidelines and therefore permits arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
3. The dissent would reverse the order denying pretrial habeas relief and remand for dismissal of the indictment as void.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the phrase unsafe for self-medication in the statutory definition of a dangerous drug is facially unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide ordinary people fair notice of prohibited conduct.
2. Whether the same phrase is facially unconstitutionally vague because it fails to establish determinate guidelines sufficient to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
3. Whether a facially unconstitutional statute renders the charging instrument void and requires dismissal of the indictment.

Disposition

other