Texas Joins Ami­cus Brief Defend­ing Law­ful Search And Seizure

Staff Report

Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton is the lawyer for the State of Texas and is charged by the Texas Constitution to:

• defend the laws and the Constitution of the State of Texas
• represent the State in litigation
• approve public bond issues

To fulfill these responsibilities, the Office of the Attorney General serves as legal counsel to all boards and agencies of state government, issues legal opinions when requested by the Governor, heads of state agencies, and other officials and agencies as provided by Texas statutes.

The Texas AG sits as an ex-officio member of state committees and commissions and defends challenges to state laws and suits against both state agencies and individual employees of the State.

Many Texans look to the Office of the Attorney General for guidance with disputes and legal issues. The agency receives hundreds of letters, phone calls, and visits each week about crime victims’ compensation, child support, abuse in nursing homes, possible consumer fraud, and other topics. To find out more about the Texas Attorney General, visit the official website at https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/.

Texas Joins Ami­cus Brief Defend­ing Law­ful Search and Seizure

Texas joined a Utah-led amicus brief urging the United States Supreme Court to take a case that asks whether the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination permits a suspect to refuse to unlock their electronic devices even if law enforcement has a warrant.

In this case, the Pennsylvania Attorney General investigated and arrested Joseph Davis, who was suspected of sharing child pornography online.

Although the Pennsylvania Attorney General obtained a warrant, Davis refused to share the password to his computer, which contains evidence of his criminal activity.

Today’s friend-of-the-court brief describes how encryption works and shows that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court incorrectly held that the Fifth Amendment protects the suspect.

Read a copy of the amicus brief here.  

Notification of Opinion

Official Request RQ-0316-KP
Whether state or federal law preempts application of municipal development ordinances to a water control and improvement district’s construction and maintenance of dams.

Official Opinion KP-0309
Without evidence in the statutes of the Legislature’s clear and unmistakable intent to preempt all local ordinances affecting dams, a court would likely conclude that a local regulation will be invalid only to the extent inconsistent with state regulation.