Horhn v. State, 481 S.W.3d 363

Police detained William Horhn at a Harris County gas station after recognizing him as a burglary suspect; the burglary warrant had been quashed but dispatch verified outstanding municipal warrants from Oak Ridge North for failure to appear.
Officers arrested Horhn on the municipal warrants and, incident to arrest, seized his cell phone and a credit card bearing another’s name.
Officer Flora allegedly obtained Horhn’s consent to view the phone, saw spreadsheets of names/SSNs, then procured a search warrant for the phone; digital forensics produced identifying information used in charging.
Horhn was indicted for debit-card abuse and fraudulent use of identifying information (Tex. Penal Code § 32.51); he moved to suppress evidence (arguing the municipal warrant affidavit was conclusory) and to quash the § 32.51 indictment as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The trial court denied suppression and denied the motion to quash; a jury convicted Horhn and the court sentenced him. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Horhn)	Held
Validity of municipal arrest warrant/ admissibility of evidence seized incident to arrest	Warrant complied with art. 15.05; magistrate’s probable-cause finding entitled to deference; arrest valid so search-incident-to-arrest evidence admissible	Affidavit was conclusory (insufficient probable cause); invalid warrant rendered arrest and derivative search illegal	Warrant was sufficient (affiant identified as peace officer with personal knowledge and judge found probable cause); arrest valid; suppression denied
Facial challenge to Tex. Penal Code § 32.51(b) (overbroad/content-based speech restriction)	§ 32.51 targets noncommunicative conduct (obtaining/possessing/transferring/using identifying info with intent to harm/defraud), so it does not implicate First Amendment and is not overbroad or content-based	Statute criminalizes obtaining/use of identifying information and thus allegedly burdens protected expression (e.g., background checks, journalism); overbroad and content-based	§ 32.51(b) does not implicate First Amendment (requires intent to harm/defraud and targets noncommunicative conduct); not overbroad or content-based; motion to quash denied

Gordon v. State, 801 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. Crim. App.) (insufficient, conclusory complaint cannot establish probable cause for arrest warrant)
Brooks v. State, 76 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (failure-to-appear warrants can rest on court/affiant personal knowledge; upheld municipal warrants)
Scott v. State, 322 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App.) (statute criminalizing telephone harassment did not implicate First Amendment where it targeted noncommunicative invasions of privacy requiring specific intent)
Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App.) (analysis of whether a statute regulating photography/visual recording implicated First Amendment; some conduct is inherently expressive)
McLain v. State, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. Crim. App.) (review of magistrate’s probable-cause decision is highly deferential)
Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App.) (affidavits should be read commonsensically; magistrate may draw reasonable inferences)
Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560 (U.S. Supreme Court) (probable cause requirement for warrants)