Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

OPINION

Nos. 04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

EX PARTE Robert METZGER

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. A1920

and

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7000

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 26, 2020

AFFIRMED 

Appellant Robert Metzger was indicted in both Kerr and Gillespie Counties for multiple 

counts of violating sections 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Texas Penal Code, the “Invasive Visual 

Recording” statute. Both indictments were filed in the 216th Judicial District Court, and the cases 

proceeded together. Metzger filed pretrial applications for writs of habeas corpus and motions to 

quash the indictments, alleging the provisions of section 21.15 under which he was charged are 

facially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The trial 

court granted the writs, held a non-evidentiary hearing on the cases, and denied relief. Metzger 

appeals the denial of relief. We affirm the trial court’s orders.
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 2 -

BACKGROUND

The Texas Legislature enacted the current version of section 21.15 in 2015, after the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals declared the previous version of section 21.15(b)(1) unconstitutional. 

See Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).1 Sections 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2) 

now provide: 

(b) A person commits an offense if, without the other person’s consent and with 

intent to invade the privacy of the other person, the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, 

broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of an intimate area of another 

person if the other person has a reasonable expectation that the 

intimate area is not subject to public view;

(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, 

broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another in a bathroom or 

changing room; 

TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.15(b)(1)-(2). Section 21.15 defines “intimate area” as “the naked or 

clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast of a person” and defines “changing 

room” as “a room or portioned area provided for or primarily used for the changing of clothing 

and includes dressing rooms, locker rooms, and swimwear changing areas.” Id. § 21.15(a)(2), (3).

An offense under section 21.15 is a state jail felony, punishable by confinement in a state jail for 

1 The version of section 21.15(b)(1) addressed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Thompson, provided: 

(b) a person commits an offense if the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or 

transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing 

room:

(A) without the other person’s consent; and

(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Act of May 17, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 458, § 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 893, 893, amended by Act of May 28, 2003, 

78th Leg., R.S., ch. 500, § 1, 2003 Tex. Gen Laws 1771, 1771, amended by Act of May 18, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 

306, § 1, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 582, 582 (amended 2015) (current version at TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.15(b)(1)). The 

Court of Criminal Appeals held section 21.15(b)(1) violated the First Amendment because it was not narrowly tailored 

to address compelling privacy interests and was substantially overbroad because it applied broadly to any 

nonconsensual photography or visual recording, including that which was purely public, so long as the actor had the 

requisite sexual intent. 442 S.W.3d at 348-51. 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 3 -

not less than 180 days and not more than two years and a fine of up to $10,000. TEX. PENAL CODE

§§ 12.35, 21.15(c).

The indictments charge that Metzger, with the intent to invade the privacy of N.M. and 

without N.M.’s consent:

• transmitted by electronic means a visual image of an intimate area of N.M. and N.M.

had reasonable expectation of privacy that the intimate area was not subject to public 

view, in violation of section 21.15(b)(1); (four counts);

• photographed an intimate area of N.M. and N.M. had reasonable expectation the 

intimate area was not subject to public view, in violation of 21.15(b)(1); (one count);

and

• photographed N.M. in a bathroom or changing room, in violation of section 

21.15(b)(2); (2 counts).

Metzger filed pretrial applications for writs of habeas corpus in each case, seeking to dismiss the 

indictments on the ground the provisions of section 21.15(b)(1) and (2) under which he was 

charged violate the First Amendment and are unconstitutionally overbroad. After the trial court 

denied relief, Metzger filed these appeals. In three issues, he contends the restriction on

transmission of images in section 21.15(b)(1) and the restriction on photography in sections 

21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2) are unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on speech that facially violate 

the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW AND FIRST AMENDMENT REVIEW

A defendant may file a pretrial habeas challenge to the facial constitutionality of a statute 

that defines the offense charged. Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A 

party may bring a facial challenge to a statute pursuant to the First Amendment doctrine of 

substantial overbreadth without a showing the statute is unconstitutionally applied to him. 

Massachusetts v. Oakes, 491 U.S. 576, 581 (1989); State v. Johnson, 475 S.W.3d 860, 864-65 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (stating that “under the First Amendment’s ‘overbreadth’ doctrine, a law 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 4 -

may be declared unconstitutional on its face, even if it may have some legitimate application and 

even if the parties before the court were not engaged in activity protected by the First 

Amendment”). “The doctrine is predicated on the danger that an overly broad statute, if left in

place, may cause persons whose expression is constitutionally protected to refrain from exercising 

their rights for fear of criminal sanctions.” Oakes, 491 U.S. at 581. We review de novo the trial 

court’s determination of whether the statute is facially unconstitutional. Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 

10, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

“[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to 

restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” U.S. v. 

Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468 (2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 

573 (2002)). However, there are some “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech” that 

have been recognized as falling outside the protection of the First Amendment. Stevens, 559 U.S. 

at 468-72. These include child pornography, obscenity, defamation, fighting words, incitement, 

true threats of violence, fraud, and speech integral to criminal conduct. See id. Speech not within 

one of these narrowly defined categories is protected under the First Amendment, even if a 

legislature “concludes certain speech is too harmful to be tolerated.” Brown v. Entm’t Merchants 

Ass’n, 564 U.S. 786, 791 (2011). 

A statute that seeks to restrict or punish protected speech based on its content is 

presumptively invalid. Stevens, 559 U.S. at 468; Lo, 424 S.W.3d at 15. The State bears the burden 

to rebut that presumption by demonstrating that the statute passes strict scrutiny. Brown, 564 U.S. 

at 799; Stevens, 559 U.S. at 468. To pass strict scrutiny, the State must demonstrate the statute is 

justified by a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored, using the least restrictive means 

necessary to achieve its asserted interest. Brown, 564 U.S. at 799; Thompson, 442 S.W.3d at 344; 

see U.S. v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 725-26 (2012) (plurality op.) (“There must be a direct causal 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 5 -

link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented”). If the statute still reaches a 

“real” and “substantial” amount of protected speech, “judged in relation to the statute’s plainly 

legitimate sweep,” the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad. Stevens, 559 U.S. at 473; Lo, 424 

S.W.3d at 10. 

DISCUSSION

A. Section 21.15 regulates protected speech

Metzger challenges parts of section 21.15 that impose criminal penalties on photography 

and transmission of visual images. As a general matter, both the creation and dissemination of 

visual images are protected expression under the First Amendment. See Brown, 564 U.S. 786 

(holding law that imposed civil fines for the sale or rental of violent video games to minors 

impermissibly restricted protected speech); Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (holding statute criminalizing 

the knowing creation, selling, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty with intent to 

place it in commerce for commercial gain punished protected speech); Ashcroft v. Free Speech 

Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (holding statutory prohibition on possessing or distributing “virtual 

child pornography,” non-obscene sexually explicit images that appear to depict minors but which 

were produced using youthful adults or computer imaging technology, violated First Amendment); 

Thompson, 442 S.W.3d at 336-37 (holding that photographs and visual recordings, as well as the 

purposeful creation of them, are inherently expressive and are protected by the First Amendment). 

Although some visual images restricted by section 21.15 are unprotected because they are obscene 

or constitute child pornography, the reach of section 21.15 is indisputably far broader and reaches 

photographs and visual images not within any of the recognized categories of unprotected speech.

The State argues the expressive activity regulated by section 21.15 “is removed from the 

ambit of First Amendment protection” because the statute only restricts photography and visual 

recordings intended to invade the “substantial privacy interests” of another “in an essentially 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 6 -

intolerable manner.” Alternatively, the State asserts that speech intended to invade substantial 

privacy rights should be categorically unprotected by the First Amendment. We disagree with both 

propositions.

The State’s argument that the photography and transmissions restricted by section 21.15

are not protected by the First Amendment appears to be based upon a line of United States Supreme 

Court cases upholding restrictions on protected speech under the “captive audience doctrine.” The 

doctrine has been applied “only sparingly to protect unwilling listeners from protected speech” 

and then, only upon “a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially 

intolerable manner.” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 459 (2011) (quoting Cohen v. California, 

403 U.S. 15, 21 (1971)); see, e.g., Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 489 (1988) (holding ordinance

that prohibited picketing focused on and taking place at a particular residence was content neutral, 

served State’s interest in protecting tranquility and privacy of the home, and survived intermediate 

scrutiny); Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dep’t, 397 U.S. 728 (1970) (upholding statute that allowed 

householders to request postal service remove them from certain mass mailing lists, and 

concluding householder’s right not to be captive to unwanted and objectionable speech in his own 

home prevailed over mass mailer’s First Amendment right to communicate). These cases do not 

support that there is a categorical exception for speech that “invades the substantial privacy 

interests of another in an essentially intolerable manner;” rather, they hold that in limited

circumstances, the State’s interest in protecting specific individual privacy interests is sufficiently 

compelling that narrow restrictions on First Amendment freedoms may be justified. 

The captive audience cases did not create a categorical exception to First Amendment 

protection, and the Supreme Court has not otherwise held that speech or expressive activity that 

“invades substantial privacy interests of another in an essentially intolerable manner” is “removed 

from the ambit of First Amendment protection.” To the contrary, the Court recognizes that both 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 7 -

freedom of speech under the First Amendment and individual privacy rights are “plainly rooted in 

the traditions and significant concerns of our society.” The Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 533 

(1989). Because of “the sensitivity and significance of the interests presented in clashes between 

First Amendment and privacy rights,” the Supreme Court has consistently relied “on limited 

principles that sweep no more broadly than the appropriate context of” the case before it. Id. Thus, 

in Florida Star, the Court held the First Amendment precluded civil liability against a newspaper 

for publishing the name of a sexual assault victim, even though the publication violated both the 

paper’s own policy and state law, but the Court declined “to hold broadly that truthful publication 

may never be punished consistent with the First Amendment.” Id. at 532.

In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the Supreme Court again addressed the 

“clash” between the First Amendment and privacy rights in a challenge to the federal wiretapping 

law, which contained civil and criminal penalties for intentionally disclosing the contents of an 

illegally intercepted communication. The defendants were sued after they intentionally and 

repeatedly disclosed in a radio broadcast the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone 

conversation. The defendants did not participate in the illegal interception, but they knew or had 

reason to know the interception was unlawful. 532 U.S. 517-18. The Court held the information 

disclosed concerned a matter of public interest and that neither the state’s interest in protecting the 

privacy of its citizens nor its interest in deterring the unlawful interception of communications 

justified punishing the truthful publication of the lawfully obtained information. Id. at 529-35. 

Although the Court stated that “[a]s a general matter, state action to punish the publication of 

truthful information seldom can satisfy constitutional standards,” it again “refused to answer 

categorically whether truthful publication may ever be punished consistent with the First 

Amendment” because of “the sensitivity and significance of the interests presented in clashes

between First Amendment and privacy rights.” Id. at 527, 529 (internal quotation marks omitted).
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 8 -

The Court also declined to decide whether the state’s interest in protecting privacy would be strong 

enough to justify applying the statute if the disclosure concerned purely private information. Id. at 

533. 

In Snyder v. Phelps, a jury found the defendants intentionally invaded the plaintiffs’ 

privacy by intruding upon their seclusion and inflicted emotional distress by picketing at plaintiffs’ 

son’s funeral. 562 U.S. 443, 450 (2011). The jury awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages 

and $8 million in punitive damages for speech that was “so outrageous in character, and so extreme 

in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and 

utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” Id. at 465 (Alito, J., dissenting) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Even though a jury had found the speech and expressive activity had been an 

intentional and highly offensive invasion of privacy, the Court noted it did not fall within one of 

the categorical exclusions from First Amendment protection. Id. at 450 n.3. Concluding the 

defendants were picketing in a place they had a right to be and about a matter of public concern, 

the Court held the First Amendment barred the recovery for intentional invasion of privacy and 

intentional infliction of emotional distress. 562 U.S. at 456-60. The Court recognized the First 

Amendment protection may be “less rigorous” in a case where the speech concerned purely private 

matters.

2 Id. at 452. However, the Court has not decided the boundaries of First Amendment

protection of purely private truthful speech in the context of claims of invasion of privacy and 

intentional infliction of emotional distress. See id. at 461-62 (Breyer, J., concurring); id. at 464-65 

(Alito, J., dissenting).

2 Although analysis of some restrictions on purely private speech may be less rigorous, the Court “in no sense 

suggest[s] that speech on private matters falls into one of the narrow and well-defined classes of expression which 

carries so little social value, such as obscenity, that the State can prohibit and punish such expression by all persons 

in its jurisdiction.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 147 (1983) (discussing restriction of public employee’s speech 

regarding matters not of public concern).
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 9 -

The United States Supreme Court has never held that truthful expression that invades 

privacy “in an intolerable manner” categorically loses its First Amendment protection or that intent 

to invade privacy converts protected expression into unprotected conduct. We therefore reject the

State’s argument that by including an element of intent to invade privacy in section 21.15 and by 

purportedly limiting the statute’s application to “highly offensive” and “intolerable” invasions of 

“substantial” privacy interests, the legislature removed the creation of the visual images proscribed 

by the statute “from the ambit of” the First Amendment. See Ex parte Hamilton, 599 S.W.3d 312, 

317 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. filed) (rejecting State’s argument that intent-toinvade-privacy element in section 21.15(b) resulted in statute that regulates conduct that is not 

subject to First Amendment protection or scrutiny). 

We also decline the State’s invitation to recognize a new category of unprotected speech.

The “guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc 

balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by 

the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. 

Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some 

speech is not worth it.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 470. “[N]ew categories of unprotected speech may 

not be added to the list by a legislature that concludes certain speech is too harmful to be tolerated.” 

Brown, 564 U.S. at 791. And this court lacks “freewheeling authority to declare new categories of 

speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.” Stevens, 559 U.S. at 472; see also Ex parte 

Thompson, 442 S.W.3d at 344 (noting that the categories of speech that are exempt from First 

Amendment protection are limited and heeding Supreme Court’s admonition against creation of 

new categories); State v. Van Buren, 214 A.3d 791, 802 (Vt. 2019) (refusing “to identify a new 

categorical exclusion from the full protections of the First Amendment” for “extreme invasions of 

privacy” such as nonconsensual pornography).
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 10 -

B. Section 21.15 is a content-based restriction

Because section 21.15 regulates expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, we 

must next determine whether the statutory restrictions are content-based. A law is content-based 

if it “targets speech based on its communicative content.” Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 

155, 163 (2015). A law is content-based if the “regulation of speech ‘on its face’ draws distinctions 

based on the message a speaker conveys. Some facial distinctions based on a message are obvious, 

defining regulated speech by particular subject matter, and others are more subtle, defining 

regulated speech by its function or purpose. Both are distinctions drawn based on the message a 

speaker conveys, and, therefore, are subject to strict scrutiny.” Id. at 163-64 (internal citation 

omitted). Also subject to strict scrutiny are regulations that, although facially content neutral, 

cannot be justified without reference to the content of the speech.” Id. at 164. “If it is necessary to 

look at the content of the speech in question to decide if the speaker violated the law, the regulation 

is content-based.” Lo, 424 S.W.3d at 15 n.12. 

A person who photographs or transmits a visual image without consent and with the intent 

to invade privacy violates section 21.15(b)(1) only if the image is of another person’s “intimate 

area,” defined as “naked or clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast.” TEX.

PENAL CODE § 21.15(a)(1), (2), (b)(1). It does not apply to nonconsensual images that include only

feet, hands, necks, or faces, even if the person had a reasonable expectation they were not subject 

to public view (i.e., the subject of the image was inside their home). Limiting the prohibition in 

section 21.15(b)(1) to only images that include “intimate areas” is a content-based restriction, even 

if the intent element of the offense is not considered. See Hamilton, 599 S.W.3d at 317-18 (holding 

the sexually-related nature and subject matter of the images proscribed by section 21.15(b)(1) 

renders the statute content-based).
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 11 -

Subsection (b)(2) prohibits only the creation of certain visual images of “another” in a 

changing room or bathroom. TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.15(b)(2). The State assumes, but does not 

concede, the prohibition is content-based. Metzger argues it is content-based because it only 

applies to visual images of people, but not to images of a cat or a flower, and to determine whether 

the statute is violated, one must look at the content of the speech. See Lo, 424 S.W.3d at 15 n.12. 

However, in its review of the previous version of section 21.15(b)(1), the Court of Criminal 

Appeals stated the “inquiry ... is not that simple.” Thompson, 442 S.W.3d at 346. Former section 

21.15(b)(1) prohibited the nonconsensual creation of a “visual image of another at a location that 

is not a bathroom or private dressing room” if done “with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual 

desire of any person.”3 The Court of Criminal Appeals stated the discrimination in the statute was 

not between people and animals or inanimate objects; rather the statute distinguished permissible 

photography from prohibited photography “on the basis of the non-consensual nature of the 

defendant’s activity, and that basis, by itself, is a content-neutral distinction.” Id. at 346-47. The 

court nevertheless concluded the section was content-based because it punished only “a subset of 

non-consensual image and video producing activity—that which is done with the intent to arouse 

or gratify sexual desire.” Id. at 347-48. The court concluded the culpable mental state caused the 

statute to be content-based. Id. In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on several cases, 

including Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 411-12 (1989). Johnson held the Texas flag-burning 

statute was content-based because whether the law was violated depended on the communicative 

impact of the expressive conduct; the statute only punished mistreatment of the flag that was done 

with the intent to seriously offend other people. 491 U.S. 411-12 & n.7; see Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 

at 347-48. We hold the culpable mental state in section 21.15(b)(2) likewise causes the statute to 

3 See n. 1, supra.
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 12 -

be content-based. That section does not punish all nonconsensual photography or video recording 

activity in a bathroom or changing room, only that done with the intent to invade the other person’s 

privacy. As discussed below, activity engaged in with the intent to invade another’s privacy is by 

definition activity intended to be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

See Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473-74 (Tex. 1995); Valenzuela v. Aquino, 853 

S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex. 1993). Under the reasoning of the courts in Johnson and Thompson, section 

21.15(b) is content-based because whether the law has been violated depends on the 

communicative impact of the expressive activity. 

C. Strict scrutiny 

Because section 21.15 is a content-based restriction on protected speech, it is subject to 

strict scrutiny review.

4 Brown, 564 U.S. at 799; Thompson, 442 S.W.3d at 348. “Content-based 

prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive 

force in the lives and thoughts of a free people. To guard against that threat the Constitution 

demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid, and that the Government 

bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.” Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 660 (internal 

citation omitted) (stating “[t]his is true even when Congress twice has attempted to find a

constitutional means to restrict, and punish, the speech in question,” and upholding injunction 

against enforcement of statute that imposed criminal penalties for knowingly posting materials 

harmful to minors). To satisfy strict scrutiny, content-based laws that regulate expression “are 

presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are 

4 Several of our sister courts have held Penal Code sections 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2), as amended in 2015, survive strict 

scrutiny and are not unconstitutional. See Hamilton, 599 S.W.3d 312 (§ 21.15(b)(1)); Ex parte Nuñez, No. 11-18-

00156-CR, 2019 WL 2062699 (Tex. App.—Eastland May 9, 2019, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (§ 21.15(b)(2)); Matter of D.Y., No. 02-16-00294-CV, 2017 WL 2178877 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 

18, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (§ 21.15(b)(2)).
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 13 -

narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” Reed, 576 U.S. at 155. See, e.g., WilliamsYulee v. Fla. Bar, 575 U.S. 433, 444 (2015) (plurality opinion) (upholding judicial canon that 

prohibited personal solicitation of campaign funds; four justices concluded the canon survived 

strict scrutiny because it was narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interest; a fifth justice 

would reach the same result by applying intermediate scrutiny). If the State has a compelling 

interest and has narrowly tailored its statute, the statute will be invalidated for overbreadth only if 

the challenger can show the statute continues to reach a real and substantial amount of protected 

speech, “judged in relation to its legitimate sweep.” New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 769 (1982).

Before further analysis, we address Metzger’s assertion that the statute is inherently 

unconstitutional and no further scrutiny is required. Metzger contends the statute restricts a real 

and substantial amount of protected speech because the only unprotected speech within its scope 

are obscene images and images of child pornography. He asserts the statute is therefore necessarily 

unconstitutionally overbroad. He does not argue the State has failed to show a compelling interest 

or that section 21.15 is not narrowly tailored, asserting such arguments are unnecessary. Instead, 

he argues that because the vast majority of images within the scope of the statute are protected, 

“the court does not consider whether there is a governmental interest in restricting the speech,” 

“the inquiry ends,” and the “restriction is void.” We disagree. A content-based restriction on 

expression is only presumptively invalid. See id. The State may “regulate the content of 

constitutionally protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the least 

restrictive means to further the articulated interest.” Sable Commc’ns of Cal., Inc. v. F.C.C., 492 

U.S. 115, 126, (1989) (emphasis added). If the State meets its burden, the statute is 

unconstitutionally overbroad only if it reaches far more protected speech than the State has a 

compelling interest in restricting. We also disagree with Metzger that Stevens supports his position. 

In Stevens, the Court concluded the criminal statute banning depictions of animal cruelty applied 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 14 -

to far more protected expressive activity than that which the government asserted it had a 

compelling interest in restricting (its allegedly “legitimate sweep”). 559 U.S. at 481. The Court 

therefore held the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad without it needing to decide whether 

the asserted state interest was sufficiently compelling to justify a more narrow statute. Id. at 482.

1. Statutory construction: What does the statute cover?

The first step in an overbreadth analysis is to construe the challenged statute; it is 

impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute 

covers. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 292-93 (2008); Ex parte Perry, 483 S.W.3d 884, 

902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Section 21.15, in its entirety, provides:

(a) In this section:

(1) “Female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top 

of the areola.

(2) “Intimate area” means the naked or clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, 

buttocks, or female breast of a person.

(3) “Changing room” means a room or portioned area provided for or 

primarily used for the changing of clothing and includes dressing rooms, 

locker rooms, and swimwear changing areas.

(4) “Promote” has the meaning assigned by Section 43.215

. 

(b) A person commits an offense if, without the other person’s consent and with 

intent to invade the privacy of the other person, the person:

(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, 

broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of an intimate area of another 

person if the other person has a reasonable expectation that the intimate 

area is not subject to public view;

(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, 

broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another in a bathroom or 

changing room; or

5 Section 43.21 defines “promote” as “to manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, 

publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or advertise, or to offer or agree to do the same.” TEX.

PENAL CODE § 43.21(a)(5).
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 15 -

(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, 

broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, 

or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).

(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an 

offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the 

other law.

(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the 

person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, 

broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person’s consent under 

that subdivision.

TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.15. In construing the Penal Code, “we give effect to the plain meaning of 

its language unless the language is ambiguous or the plain meaning leads to absurd results that the 

legislature could not have possibly intended.” Perry, 483 S.W.3d at 902. We consider the words 

in context and construe them according to the rules of grammar and common usage unless a word 

or phrase has acquired a technical or particular meaning, in which case we construe it accordingly. 

TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.011. When the meaning of the statutory language is not plain or leads to 

absurd results, we may consider extratextual factors such as the circumstances under which the 

statute was enacted, the legislative history, the common law, and former statutory provisions. 

Perry, 483 S.W.3d at 903. 

a. Photography and transmission under section 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2) 

Metzger challenges the constitutionality of the three means of violating section 21.15 with 

which he was charged—photographing an intimate area in violation of subsection (b)(1), 

transmitting a visual image of an intimate area of another person in violation of subsection (b)(1), 

and photographing another in violation of subsection (b)(2). To properly analyze whether the 

statute passes strict scrutiny, we must understand exactly what the statute proscribes. 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 16 -

The prohibition on photographing a person is clear, plain, and unambiguous. What 

constitutes “transmit[ting] a visual image” is less clear. The plain meeting of “transmit” is “[t]o 

send or transfer (a thing) from one person or place to another.” Transmit, BLACK’S LAW 

DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). Thus, it initially appears that the prohibitions in (b)(1) and (b)(2)

apply equally to a person who initially photographs or records a prohibited image and to any person 

who, at some later time, “transmits” by electronically sharing or sending the image. However, 

when we consider the statute as a whole and the legislative history, we conclude “transmit,” as 

used in section 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2) has a narrower meaning, and is limited to the original 

creation of the visual image by means of an electronic transmission. 

We reach this conclusion in part by examining the structure of the statute. Subsection (b)(3) 

specifically targets the dissemination and sharing of previously created images by making it an 

offense to “promote[] a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by 

Subdivision (1) or (2).” TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.15(b)(3). To establish a violation of (b)(3), the 

State must prove the additional element that the actor who promotes the material did so “knowing 

the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission.” Id. That is, to 

prove a person committed the offense of promoting a previously created prohibited visual image, 

the State must prove, at a minimum, that the actor has knowledge the image was created in a 

bathroom or changing room or has knowledge the image is of another’s intimate area and of the 

circumstances that gave rise to the other person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. See id. The 

State is not required to so prove when charging under (b)(1) or (b)(2), presumably because the 

person charged under those sections necessarily is aware of the nature of the image and the 

circumstances in which the image was created. If the word “transmit” in (b)(1) and (b)(2) is 

construed to mean it is an offense to electronically send or share a previously created visual image, 

then subsection (b)(3) would be superfluous. The State could then prosecute actors who 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 17 -

electronically share prohibited images under (b)(1) or (b)(2) without any showing the actor had 

knowledge of the content and character or the visual image. 

The legislative history of the statute also clarifies that “transmit” as used in subsections 

(b)(1) and (b)(2) was intended to refer to a method of electronically creating a visual image, not to 

subsequent electronic sharing or sending of the image. The 2003 version of section 21.15 made it 

an offense to “photograph[] or by videotape or other electronic means visually record[] another” 

in proscribed circumstances. Act of May 28, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 500, § 1, 2003 Tex. Gen 

Laws 1771, 1771 (amended 2007 & 2015). It also provided a person committed an offense if, 

“knowing the character and content of the photograph or recording,” the person “promote[d]” a 

prohibited photograph or visual recording. Id. The legislature made several changes to section 

21.15 in 2007, one of which was to add “broadcast” and “transmit” to what are now subsections 

(b)(1) and (b)(2). Act of May 18, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 306, § 1, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 582, 

582 (amended 2015). The background and purpose of this amendment, as stated in the bill analysis 

for the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee was:

Technology has become quite advanced in recent years, including consumer hand 

held devices that are able to broadcast or transmit “live feeds” of an image without 

actually recording the image. For example, cameras on mobile phones can be used 

to “see” an event as it is happening (like peering through a set of binoculars) without 

actually capturing the image as a photograph. Likewise other electronic devices 

allow for “live feeds” of images to be broadcast and transmitted.

Current Texas law provides that it is a criminal offense to photograph, videotape, 

or by electronic means visually record another person without their consent for the 

purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of any person. It is also a criminal offense 

to promote the character and content of such a photograph or visual recording. 

While Texas law provides for such an offense, it is not an offense to broadcast or 

transmit such an image via only a “live feed.”

House Bill 1804 corrects this loophole by also making it an offense to broadcast or 

transmit the visual image of another person without their consent . . . 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 18 -

House Crim. Jurisprudence Comm., Bill Analysis, Tex. H.B. 1804, 80th Leg., R.S. (2007). When 

the legislature again amended the statute in 2015, after Thompson held it was unconstitutional, it 

amended the intent provisions and the statute’s applicability in public places, but it did not modify 

the prohibited manners of creating a visual image listed in (b)(1) and (b)(2). See Act of May 30, 

2015, 84th Leg., R.S., ch. 955, § 2, 2015 Tex. Gen. Laws 3394, 3394 (codified at TEX. PENAL 

CODE § 21.15). We conclude that, as used in section 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2), “transmit” applies 

only to an actor who by electronic means creates the proscribed visual image. 

b. Content and location of prohibited photographs and visual images 

The photographs and visual images prohibited by section 21.15(b)(1) are those “of an 

intimate area of another person if the other person has a reasonable expectation that the intimate 

area is not subject to public view.” TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.15(b)(1). “Intimate areas” means a 

person’s “naked or clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast.” Id. § 21.15(a)(2). 

Subsection (b)(1) appears to have several applications. First, it proscribes creating visual images 

of parts of the body the person reasonably expects are not subject to public view. That is, it applies 

to photographs and visual images created in any location, public or private, if the image is of an 

intimate area the person reasonably believed was not subject to public view because, for example,

it was covered by outer clothing such as a skirt. Indeed, the opinions we have found reviewing 

convictions under the 2015 amendments to section 21.15(b)(1) all involve “upskirt” photography 

or recording. See Aguilar v. State, No. 14-18-00321-CR, 2019 WL 3121823 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] July 16, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (upskirt video with 

cell phone in a store); Ex parte Faust, No. 09-18-00462, 2019 WL 1549037 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont April 10, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (upskirt video 

recording with cell phone in shopping mall); Vasquez v. State, No. 05-16-01122-CR, 2017 WL 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 19 -

1710583 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(upskirt photography with cell phone in a grocery store). 

By its plain language, section 21.15(b)(1) also includes visual images created when the 

subject of the image is in a place where they have a reasonable expectation their intimate areas are 

not subject to public view, such as in the person’s home, so long as the image includes one or more 

of their (naked or clothed) intimate areas. A person in their home who is not standing in front of 

a window with open curtains may reasonably expect that they are not subject to public view. Cf. 

Long v. State, 532 S.W2d 591, 594-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (holding Fourth Amendment 

reasonable expectation of privacy does not protect what a person makes visible to public through 

a window with open curtains or blinds); Turner v. State, 499 S.W.2d 182, 183-85 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1973) (same). By the plain terms of the statute, an image of that person in their home that includes 

one of the person’s intimate areas, naked or clothed, is within the scope of subsection (b)(1). The 

statute does not require the proscribed image be sexual in nature. 

The location and content of images proscribed by subsection (b)(2) are unambiguous: it 

applies to any photograph or visual image of another person in one of two inherently private 

places—a bathroom or changing room. 

c. Nonconsensual

In order to be prohibited by section 21.15(b)(1) or (b)(2), the creation of the visual image 

must be done “without the other person’s consent.” “Consent” is defined by the Texas Penal Code 

to mean “assent in fact, whether express or apparent.” TEX. PENAL CODE § 1.07(a)(11). The Penal

Code definition has been construed to mean “an actual or real agreement after thoughtful 

consideration.” Thompson, 442 S.W.3d at 340-41; Baird v. State, 398 S.W.3d 220, 229-30 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2013). 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 20 -

d. Intent to invade privacy

Both subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) require the actor have taken the photograph or 

transmitted the visual image with the intent to invade the privacy of the other person. Neither 

“intent to invade the privacy” of a person nor “invasion of privacy” are defined in the Texas Penal 

Code or in any other Texas statute. However, the phrase has acquired a technical or particular 

meaning in Texas common law. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.011.

A right to personal privacy has long been part of the common law, and since 1973, Texas 

has recognized that an unwarranted invasion of the right of privacy constitutes a legal injury. 

Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858, 859-60 (Tex. 1973). This right to of privacy incorporates 

several interests, the invasion of which can give rise to a civil remedy. Id. One of those interests—

the right to be free from the wrongful intrusion into one’s seclusion and private activities—is

addressed by subsections 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2). See id. at 859.6 Under established Texas law, the 

elements of a claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion are an intentional intrusion, physically or 

otherwise, upon another’s solitude, seclusion, or private affairs, which would be highly offensive 

to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. See id; Valenzuela, 853 S.W.2d at 513. We 

construe the intent element of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(2) accordingly, to mean the photography 

or transmission must be done with the intent to intrude upon the other person’s seclusion or private 

affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

6 Subsection (b)(3), which makes it an offense to promote a photograph or transmission that is prohibited by (b)(1) or 

(b)(2), addresses another of the privacy interests recognized in Billings—the interest in being free from publication 

“of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern.” See id.; Star-Telegram, 915 S.W.2d at 474 

(elements of invasion of privacy tort for public disclosure of private facts requires proof that “publicity was given to 

matters concerning one’s personal life,” “publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary 

sensibilities,” and “the matter publicized is not of legitimate public concern”).
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 21 -

2. The State’s compelling interests

The strict scrutiny analysis requires the state to identify “an actual problem in need of 

solving,” and to show that it is important enough to justify suppressing speech. See Brown, 564 

U.S. at 799. The State asserts the problem it is seeking to address is the “intolerable” invasion of 

people’s privacy that occurs when they are photographed without their consent in their home,

bathroom, or changing room and when visual images are created of their intimate areas without 

consent and when they have a reasonable expectation their intimate areas are not subject to public 

view. Appellate opinions in cases under section 21.15 since it was amended in 2015 reflect 

prosecutions involving these types of activity—upskirt photography, pictures taken with a cell 

phone in a bathroom or dressing room, a hidden recording device in a dressing room, and a cell 

phone recording made in the bathroom of a home. See Hamilton, 599 S.W.3d at 315 (defendant 

alleged to have broadcast visual image of complainant’s genitals, which complainant had 

reasonable expectation were not subject to public view); Aguilar, 2019 WL 3121823, at *1 (upskirt 

video with cell phone in a store); Faust, 2019 WL 1549037, at *1 (upskirt video recording with 

cell phone in shopping mall); Aleman v. State, No. 13-16-00509-CR, 2018 WL 4016938, at *1-2

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 23, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(miniature recording device used to surreptitiously capture images in store dressing room); Dee v. 

State, No. 06-17-00097-CR, 2017 WL 5473770, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 15, 2017, no 

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (surreptitious cell phone video of person in 

bathroom of a home); D.Y., 2017 WL 2178877, at *1 (cell phone used to photograph or record an 

unconsented visual image of another in a bathroom or dressing room); Vasquez, 2017 WL 

1710583, at *1-2 (upskirt photography with cell phone in a grocery store). 

Privacy rights, no less than First Amendment freedoms, are “plainly rooted in the traditions 

and significant concerns of our society.” Fla. Star, 491 U.S. at 533 (quoting Cox Broad. Corp. v. 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 22 -

Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 491 (1975)). The “right to be let alone,” “is as much a part of personal liberty 

as the right to be free from physical restraint and the right to possess property.” Star-Telegram,

915 S.W.2d at 473. As early as 1890, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis recognized that “existing 

law affords a principle which may be invoked to protect the privacy of the individual from invasion 

by either the too enterprising press, the photographer, or the possessor of any other modern device 

for recording or reproducing scenes or sounds.” Samuel D. Warren & Louis Brandeis, The Right 

to Privacy, 4 HARV. L. REV. 193, 206 (1890). The right to personal privacy incorporates both a

right to seclusion and a right to bodily integrity and sexual privacy. Section 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2)

seek to protect both of these aspects of privacy. 

The State has an interest in protecting its citizens’ personal privacy and security in the 

seclusion of their homes where they have a legitimate right to expect to be free from prying eyes 

and lenses. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]he State’s interest in 

protecting the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in 

a free and civilized society.” Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484 (quoting Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. ,455, 471 

(1980)). Texas has long proscribed “peeping Tom” activity by making it a crime to peer into a 

person’s home or hotel room through a window or other opening. See, e.g., TEX. PENAL CODE

§§ 42.01(11) (disorderly conduct); 21.17 (voyeurism). The individual’s interest in seclusion and 

the State’s interest in protecting it are no less when the peeping Tom wields a camera or peers 

remotely by means of a camera or electronic transmission device hidden in the home. “[I]n the 

privacy of the home, the individual’s right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment 

rights of an intruder.” F.C.C. v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 748 (1978). 

The right of privacy also includes rights to bodily integrity and sexual privacy. A person’s 

fundamental interest in bodily integrity and sexual privacy have been recognized as liberty 

interests that are protected from unwarranted state interference by the Due Process Clause. See
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 23 -

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 564-67, 572 (2003); Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 

505 U.S. 833 (1992). Those interests are invaded by a private actor who creates unconsented visual 

images of a person in a place such as a changing room or a bathroom where people are vulnerable,

expose their bodies, and engage in highly private activities with the reasonable expectation they 

are not being photographed or recorded. A person’s bodily integrity and sexual privacy is also 

violated when someone inside their home usurps the person’s right to choose whether photographs 

may be taken of their intimate areas. See Clayton v. Richards, 47 S.W.3d 149, 155-56 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2001, pet. denied) (holding unconsented video recording of a person in the privacy of 

his bedroom, even when done by the other spouse, could be found to be highly offensive to 

reasonable person and thus a tortious invasion of privacy). These types of “video voyeurism”

“violate[] people’s sexual privacy by denying their autonomy. It effectively takes dominion over 

their bodies, intimate activities, and sexual interactions without permission. It hijacks their ability 

to decide who has access to their body, bedroom, or bathroom. It undermines people’s sense that 

they control their intimate lives.” Danielle Keats Citron, Sexual Privacy, 128 YALE L.J. 1870, 1909 

(2019). Likewise, “up-skirt” and “down-blouse” photographs violate sexual privacy by 

“undermin[ing] the victim’s decision to shield her genitalia and breasts from the public—consent 

and sexual autonomy are no longer in victims’ control.” Id. at 1914. The State has a legitimate 

interest in preventing and punishing the “profound” harm caused by these types of assaults on 

sexual privacy and bodily integrity. See id. at 1924-29 and accompanying notes (discussing harm); 

see also Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 252 (1891) (stating “[t]he inviolability of 

the person is as much invaded by a compulsory stripping and exposure as by a blow”); Van Buren, 

214 A.3d at 810-11 (discussing substantial harm caused by non-consensual pornography). We 

conclude the rights to personal seclusion, bodily integrity, and sexual privacy are substantial rights; 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 24 -

and the state has a compelling interest in protecting those rights from highly offensive or 

“intolerable” attack. 

3. The statute is narrowly tailored

To survive strict scrutiny, a law must be narrowly tailored. That means the statute must 

address the problem the State has a compelling interest in resolving, the curtailment of free speech 

is “actually necessary to the solution,” and the restriction on protected speech is the least restrictive 

means to serve the compelling interest. Brown, 564 U.S. at 799; Ashcroft, 542 U.S. 655.

The State contends sections 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2)7 are narrowly tailored because 1) they 

apply only to photographs taken and visual images transmitted in places where the person has a 

reasonable expectation of privacy or where they have a reasonable expectation their intimate areas 

are not subject to public view; 2) they do not apply to photographs or transmissions of visual 

images of people or their intimate areas that are in public view; 3) they apply only if the photograph

is taken or the visual image is transmitted without consent; and 4) they apply only if the actor 

intends to invade the other person’s privacy.

We agree the statute narrowly addresses problems the State has a compelling interest in 

solving and protects compelling privacy interests. Sections 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2) restrict the 

protected expressive activity of a person who invades the bodily integrity and sexual privacy of 

another or who intrudes upon the seclusion of the home by means of unconsented photography or 

electronic transmission. The statute applies to photography and transmissions created with 

surreptitiously placed devices in a home, bathroom, or changing room, and to “peeping Toms,”

who photograph or transmit through cracks in the curtains, a hole in the wall, or from the ground, 

looking up a person’s skirt. The statute also may reach unconsented photographs that contain any 

7 Our analysis is limited to photographs and transmissions of live feeds of visual images prohibited by section 

21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2).
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 25 -

intimate area of a naked or fully clothed person and were taken by someone, such as a family 

member or team member, who is rightfully in the home or locker room8 with the person 

photographed. However, the state has a compelling interest in restricting and punishing such an 

actor only if the unconsented photography is an “intolerable” invasion of the other person’s bodily 

privacy. As we have construed the intent-to-invade-privacy element, the statutory restriction is 

limited to “intolerable” invasions because it reaches only photographs and transmissions that either

in the manner of their creation or their subject matter would be considered highly offensive to a 

reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. 

Section 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Texas Penal Code, as we have construed them, reach 

only invasions of “substantial” privacy interests that occur “in an intolerable manner.” See 

Thompson, 442 S.W.3d at 348. We conclude the statutory curtailment of protected photography

and transmission of visual images in those sections of the statute is no broader than necessary to 

prevent the substantial harms the State has a compelling interest in preventing and therefore 

survives strict scrutiny. See Sable Commnc’ns, 492 U.S. at 126 (State may regulate 

“constitutionally protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the least 

restrictive means to further the articulated interest.”).

D. Metzger has not shown the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad

Because overbreadth is “manifestl[y] strong medicine,” it is employed “sparingly, and only 

as a last resort.” Oakes, 491 U.S. 581. A statute will be facially invalidated as unconstitutionally 

overbroad only if it reaches a real and substantial amount of protected expression, “not only in an 

absolute sense, but also relative to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Williams, 553 U.S. at 

292. “The person challenging the statute must demonstrate from its text and from actual fact “that 

8 Photographs taken in a locker room or the bathroom of a home are within the scope of the statute even if the image 

does not contain any “intimate area.”
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 26 -

a substantial number of instances exist in which the Law cannot be applied constitutionally.”

Johnson, 475 S.W.3d 865 (quoting N.Y. State Club Ass’n Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 14 

(1998). 

Metzger has not attempted to establish the statute reaches protected expression beyond that 

which the state has a compelling interest in prohibiting. Although it is conceivable a photograph 

or transmission created in violation of section 21.15(b)(1) or (b)(2) could be of such public concern 

that punishment for its creation would not comport with the First Amendment, “the danger the 

statute will be unconstitutionally applied must be realistic and not based on fanciful hypotheticals.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In light of the tensions between privacy 

interests and the First Amendment, we decline to facially invalidate the statute without a showing 

by appellant that a real and substantial amount of protected speech beyond the statute’s legitimate 

reach is prohibited or that protected speech is unjustifiably chilled. We do not hold section 

21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Penal Code are constitutional in all their applications. Rather, we

hold Metzger has failed to show unconstitutional overbreadth and we “assume that ‘whatever 

overbreadth may exist should be cured through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which 

its sanctions, assertedly, may not be applied.’” N.Y. State Club Ass’n, 487 U.S. at 14 (quoting 

Broadrick v. Ok, 413 U.S. 601, 615-16 (1973)).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we hold section 21.15(b)(1)-(2) of the Texas Penal Code is a content-based 

restriction on activity protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

However, as we have construed the restrictions on photography and electronic transmissions of 

visual images in 21.15(b)(1)-(2), the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve the State’s 

compelling interest in protecting its citizens from highly intrusive and offensive invasions of their 

substantial privacy rights. Metzger has not shown the challenged part of the statute will reach a 
04-19-00438-CR & 04-19-00450-CR

- 27 -

substantial amount of protected speech beyond this legitimate sweep or that it will unjustifiably 

chill protected activity. We therefore hold Texas Penal Code sections 21.15(b)(1) and (b)(2) are 

not facially overbroad, and we affirm the trial court’s orders.

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

PUBLISH