Ex Parte Necessary, 333 S.W.3d 782

Necessary was charged with assault against a person with whom he had a dating relationship.
A magistrate issued an emergency protection order against Necessary a week after the alleged assault.
The order prohibited family-violence-related conduct, including threats, stalking, residence/nearby restrictions, and firearm possession.
Necessary filed a pretrial habeas corpus petition arguing the Double Jeopardy Clause barred prosecution.
The trial court denied habeas relief, and Necessary appealed the denial.
The court analyzes whether the protective order is civil and whether jeopardy attached to pretrial proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the magistrate's emergency protection order constitutes criminal punishment.	Necessary argues it is criminal punishment.	State argues it is civil, not punishment.	Not criminal punishment; order civil in nature.
Whether jeopardy attached so as to bar further prosecution for the underlying assault.	Jeopardy attached due to adjudication under the order.	Jeopardy had not attached; order did not adjudicate guilt.	Jeopardy had not attached; no double jeopardy bar.
Whether collateral estoppel bars the underlying prosecution.	State relies on facts found by the order.	No jeopardy attached; no prior adjudication of facts.	Collateral estoppel does not apply; jeopardy not yet attached.

Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1997) (discusses civil vs. criminal punishment and double jeopardy limits)
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1963) (Kennedy factors for punitive effects of civil penalties)
Rodriguez v. State, 93 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (applies Kennedy factors in Texas double-jeopardy analysis)
Collazo v. State, 264 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. App.-Houston 1st Dist. 2007) (civil vs. punitive assessment of emergency orders)
U.S. v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (same-conduct analysis caution in double jeopardy context)