<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; State: Texas</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/state-texas/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:30:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refuses to hear ban on photographing people without their consent for sexual purposes</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/03/29/texas-court-of-criminal-appeals-refuses-to-hear-ban-on-photographing-people-without-their-consent-for-sexual-purposes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/03/29/texas-court-of-criminal-appeals-refuses-to-hear-ban-on-photographing-people-without-their-consent-for-sexual-purposes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:11:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Ex parte Nyabwa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2680</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/5/21/21.15">Texas Penal Code § 21.15(b)(1)</a> makes it a crime to photograph someone “without the person’s consent” and “with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.” . . .  a Texas appellate court upheld the statute . . . Today, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to review . . . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/03/29/texas-court-of-criminal-appeals-refuses-to-hear-ban-on-photographing-people-without-their-consent-for-sexual-purposes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Texas Supreme Court upholds so-called “pole tax”</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/26/texas-supreme-court-upholds-so-called-%e2%80%9cpole-tax%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/26/texas-supreme-court-upholds-so-called-%e2%80%9cpole-tax%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 20:38:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Taxation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Combs v. Texas Entertainment Association]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lower courts had called the so-called "pole tax" an improper burden on the free expression of nude dancing and a violation of the First Amendment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/26/texas-supreme-court-upholds-so-called-%e2%80%9cpole-tax%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Texas Court of Appeals upholds El Paso SOB ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/15/texas-court-of-appeals-upholds-el-paso-sob-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/15/texas-court-of-appeals-upholds-el-paso-sob-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:17:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (Porn)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Distance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Interior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: E.B.S. Enterprises v. City of El Paso]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2597</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/20110815.pdf">E.B.S. Enterprises v. City of El Paso</a></em>, No. 8-10-00088-CV (Tx. Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2011) 

Appellants assert three arguments in contending that the trial court erred in granting the City’s motion for summary judgment. The first contests the relevancy of the City’s secondary effects evidence to enacting four provisions of the ordinance that apply to Appellants. The second complains that there was a genuine issue of material fact. And the third asserts that the ordinance is preempted by a State statute. We find no merit in any of the issues raised . . . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/15/texas-court-of-appeals-upholds-el-paso-sob-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: Video of minor in tanning salon not child pornography</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/28/5th-circuit-video-of-minor-in-tanning-salon-not-child-pornography/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/28/5th-circuit-video-of-minor-in-tanning-salon-not-child-pornography/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:32:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Stevens]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Houston Chronicle: "In a decision released Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the video discovered on Alan Ray Steen's camera was not sexually explicit and didn't rise to the federal legal definitions that would have made the video warrant the charge." &#124; <em><a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/10/10-50114-CR0.wpd.pdf">United States of America v. Steven</a></em>, No. 10-50114 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2011)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/28/5th-circuit-video-of-minor-in-tanning-salon-not-child-pornography/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TX: Airport steaming over strip club neighbor</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/06/tx-airport-steaming-over-strip-club-neighbor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/06/tx-airport-steaming-over-strip-club-neighbor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:38:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB): Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alcohol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2492</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["A new Rick’s Cabaret is about to open near the South entrance to DFW International Airport . . . The new strip club is trying to get a liquor license from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Prominent Tarrant County leaders, including County Judge Glen Whitley, are protesting the permit."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/06/tx-airport-steaming-over-strip-club-neighbor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TX: Strip clubs challenge Fort Worth law on exterior paint</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/04/tx-strip-clubs-challenge-fort-worth-law-on-exterior-paint/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/04/tx-strip-clubs-challenge-fort-worth-law-on-exterior-paint/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Exterior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: I Gotcha v. Fort Worth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2480</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Three strip clubs challenge the constitutionality of a Fort Worth law that demands that sexually oriented businesses be painted in a single 'achromatic' color with a single 'achromatic' trim, 'both colors consisting of a neutral earth tone color only.'"]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/04/tx-strip-clubs-challenge-fort-worth-law-on-exterior-paint/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: 18-month delay does not render child porn evidence stale</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/04/5th-circuit-18-month-delay-does-not-render-child-porn-evidence-stale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/04/5th-circuit-18-month-delay-does-not-render-child-porn-evidence-stale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 20:56:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Evidence Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Staleness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-50283-CR0.wpd.pdf"><em>United States v. David Allen</em></a>, No. 09-50283 (5th Cir. Nov. 4, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/04/5th-circuit-18-month-delay-does-not-render-child-porn-evidence-stale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: Recipient of child pornography can challenge &#8220;sex offender&#8221; label prior to release and registration</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/20/5th-circuit-recipient-of-child-pornography-can-challenge-sex-offender-label-prior-to-release-and-registration/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/20/5th-circuit-recipient-of-child-pornography-can-challenge-sex-offender-label-prior-to-release-and-registration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Offender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Pearson v. Holder]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-10808-CV0.wpd.pdf"><em>Pearson v. Holder</em></a>, No. 09-10808 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/20/5th-circuit-recipient-of-child-pornography-can-challenge-sex-offender-label-prior-to-release-and-registration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Should Texas&#8217;s Former Ban on Obscene Device Promotion Pass Constitutional Muster Under a Murky Lawrence?</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/06/law-review-should-texass-former-ban-on-obscene-device-promotion-pass-constitutional-muster-under-a-murky-lawrence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/06/law-review-should-texass-former-ban-on-obscene-device-promotion-pass-constitutional-muster-under-a-murky-lawrence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Toys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Laura M. Clark, 41 St. Mary's L.J. 177 (2009)

"Part IV will analyze relevant U.S. Supreme Court holdings and Texas cases, apply Lawrence to the Texas and Alabama statutes, and examine whether the Texas statute might be changed to pass constitutional muster."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/06/law-review-should-texass-former-ban-on-obscene-device-promotion-pass-constitutional-muster-under-a-murky-lawrence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: Denial of restitution to child porn victim was not &#8220;indisputably wrong&#8221; where causation was in question</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/22/5th-circuit-denial-of-restitution-to-child-porn-victim-was-not-indisputably-wrong-where-causation-was-in-question/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/22/5th-circuit-denial-of-restitution-to-child-porn-victim-was-not-indisputably-wrong-where-causation-was-in-question/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: In re Amy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1868</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In re Amy</em>, No. 09-41238, 2009 WL 4928376 (5th Circ. Dec. 22, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/22/5th-circuit-denial-of-restitution-to-child-porn-victim-was-not-indisputably-wrong-where-causation-was-in-question/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

