Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/case-summaries/august-26-2016/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:13:49+00:00

Document:
Is the online impersonation statute (Penal Code §33.07(a)) facially unconstitutionally because of overbreadth or vagueness, and does it violate the Dormant Commerce Clause?
The same defense lawyer is raising this issue across the state. With these two decisions, and with the decision of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued earlier this month in State v. Stubbs, it should be much easier to defeat any other challenges to this statute.
Must evidence “definitely show” who accessed data on a cell phone to authenticate evidence found on the phone?
This is a unique case, so it is not clear whether it will apply to others. But this decision is now part of a long-standing line of cases that permits authentication by circumstantial evidence. Great job by the State in developing the necessary evidence in this case.
Does a defendant’s statutory right of access to DWI video recordings under CCP Art. 2.139 prevail over general Open Records exceptions to public disclosure found in Government Code §552.108?
This does not mean that Art. 2.139 controls over §552.018 in all cases. It just means that Art. 2.139 controls if the person making the request for the video recording is the person stopped or arrested for the intoxication-related offense or is asking on behalf of that person (such as the person’s criminal defense attorney).

References: §33
 v. 
 Art. 2
 §552
 Art. 2
 §552
 Art. 2