Ex Parte Cypress Creek EMS
01-16-00523-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Cypress Creek EMS, a Texas nonprofit ambulance provider, was criminally charged under the Texas Nonprofit Corporation Act for failing to make payroll/compensation records available to the public as required by statute.
- A private investigator requested employee payroll details; the DA’s information alleged Cypress Creek intentionally and knowingly failed to make records available.
- Cypress Creek moved to dismiss and to quash a subpoena, arguing the requested information was not subject to disclosure under the Nonprofit Corporation Act, was confidential commercial information, and disclosure would invade privacy.
- Cypress Creek had previously sought an Attorney General opinion under the Public Information Act; the AG concluded salaries paid with public funds are public, but a Travis County court later held Cypress Creek not subject to the Public Information Act.
- Cypress Creek sought a pretrial writ of habeas corpus arguing the statute was facially vague (terms like “financial records” and “financial activity” ambiguous) and lacked a mens rea standard; the trial court denied relief, finding no sufficient restraint of liberty and that the statute was not facially vague.
- The First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Cypress Creek failed to show the requisite restraint for habeas jurisdiction and thus the court need not reach the facial-vagueness arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cypress Creek demonstrated the kind of restraint/confinem ent necessary to invoke pretrial habeas jurisdiction | Cypress Creek: criminal prosecution and costs of defense (including spent funds, board disruption) sufficiently restrain corporate liberty to permit habeas | State: corporations cannot be "restrained" like natural persons; habeas available to physical persons only; Cypress Creek not confined | Held: Cypress Creek failed to show restraint sufficient for habeas jurisdiction; appellate court affirms denial of writ |
| Whether the challenged Nonprofit Corporation Act provisions are facially void for vagueness | Cypress Creek: terms “financial records” and “financial activity” are ambiguous and statute lacks mens rea, creating due-process vagueness and chilling business rights | State: statute’s language (and alleged elements "intentionally and knowingly") is sufficiently clear; payroll documents plainly fall within "financial records"/"financial activity" | Held: Court did not reach merits because no habeas jurisdiction was shown; trial court’s alternative ruling that statute was not facially vague was noted but unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (pretrial habeas is an extraordinary remedy; courts guard against misuse)
- Ex parte Weise, 55 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (pretrial habeas cognizable when favorable resolution would deprive court of power to proceed)
- Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (facial attack on penal statute is a legal question reviewed de novo)
- Ex parte Smith, 185 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (pretrial habeas use and standards)
- City of El Paso v. Alvarez, 931 S.W.2d 370 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996) (filing of complaint alone does not constitute confinement or restraint for habeas purposes)