Texas bond conditions under CCP Art. 17.40

What Article 17.40 actually says

Article 17.40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits a magistrate, in addition to setting the amount of bail, to impose “any reasonable condition of bond related to the safety of a victim of the alleged offense or to the safety of the community.”¹

The phrase “related to the safety” ties the condition to a public-protection purpose. A condition that does not relate to victim or community safety is, by the statute’s plain terms, outside the magistrate’s authority under 17.40.

Subsection (b) requires the magistrate to issue an order spelling out the conditions. The order is the document the defendant can be charged with violating; the State’s burden in any condition-violation prosecution is on the four corners of that order.

Read the statute at statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CR/htm/CR.17.htm.

What “reasonable” means in practice

Texas trial courts have applied 17.40 across a wide range of conditions. The reasonableness analysis has consistent threads.

Tied to the offense

A condition must bear a logical connection to the conduct alleged. A no-contact order with the alleged victim in an assault case is paradigmatic. A no-contact order with the alleged victim’s third cousin is harder to justify.

Tied to safety

The condition’s purpose must be safety of the victim or the community. Punitive or rehabilitative conditions imposed for some other purpose are not 17.40-authorized.

Tailored, not blanket

A condition that sweeps more broadly than necessary to address the safety concern raises a reasonableness question.

Consistent with constitutional rights

Conditions that infringe on First Amendment activity (speech, association, religious exercise) face heightened scrutiny.

Common 17.40 conditions in DFW practice

The recurring 17.40 conditions in Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties include:

• No contact with the alleged victim, directly or indirectly, including through third parties or social media.
• Stay-away orders specifying a distance from the alleged victim’s residence, workplace, or school.
• Surrender of firearms during the bond’s effectiveness.
• Alcohol abstinence in DWI cases, often coupled with SCRAM or other monitoring.
• No-internet conditions in some sex-offense cases (often litigated for reasonableness).
• GPS monitoring.
• Drug testing.
• Curfew.
• Counseling or treatment enrollment.
• Travel restrictions, including surrender of passport.

Not every defendant gets every condition. The magistrate’s choices reflect the alleged offense, the defendant’s history, and the safety concern presented.

How to challenge an unreasonable condition

The vehicle for challenging a condition is an Article 17.09 motion to modify bond. The motion is filed in the trial court — generally the same court that set the bond — and is heard on a brief evidentiary record. The State’s position frequently controls; if the State agrees with the modification, the court typically approves it.

Where the State opposes, defense counsel’s motion should:

1. Identify the specific condition challenged.
2. Show why the condition is not “related to the safety of a victim or the community” — or is broader than necessary.
3. Cite the constitutional dimension if applicable (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Travel Clause).
4. Propose a tailored substitute condition that addresses any legitimate safety concern.

In some postures, an unreasonable condition can be challenged on direct appeal of the bond order; in others, the better vehicle is a writ of habeas corpus. The procedural choice is fact-specific.

Consequences of violating a condition

Article 17.40 does not by itself criminalize violation of a bond condition. The criminalization happens elsewhere. Penal Code § 25.07 criminalizes violation of certain protective orders and bond conditions in family-violence and stalking cases.² A violation can also be the basis for bond revocation, an increased bond amount, or added conditions.

Common defense pitfalls

Three recurring problems in 17.40 practice:

Conditions agreed to without close reading

Some defendants sign a conditions order without understanding what it requires. A no-contact condition that reaches the defendant’s own children can be devastating in a family-violence case where custody issues are pending.

Implied modification

A defendant who informally arranges with the alleged victim to allow some contact is in violation regardless of the alleged victim’s consent. Modification of a 17.40 condition requires a court order, not an arrangement between the parties.

Cross-jurisdiction conflict

A 17.40 condition issued in one county may conflict with a Family Code Chapter 85 protective order issued in another county. The conflict has to be addressed in one or both forums.

Conditions that touch constitutional ground

Some 17.40 conditions implicate constitutional rights and require closer scrutiny. The recurring constitutional intersections:

First Amendment — internet bans

A blanket internet ban in a sex-offense case can survive constitutional review if narrowly tailored to the specific risk. A blanket internet ban that prevents the defendant from accessing banking, government services, or job applications is overbroad.

First Amendment — religious assembly

Stay-away orders that effectively prohibit the defendant from attending the only church or religious facility within reasonable distance can raise Free Exercise concerns. Tailored substitutes (specific facility prohibitions rather than blanket community-wide restrictions) usually solve the problem.

Fourth Amendment — search conditions

Some bond orders impose warrantless-search conditions. Texas trial courts have treated these as part of the bond contract — the defendant accepts the condition as part of bond — but the scope and execution remain reviewable.

Right to travel

Restrictions on out-of-state or international travel are common but should be calibrated to the actual flight risk. A blanket international-travel ban for a defendant with documented business travel obligations can sometimes be modified to permit specific approved trips.

Right to parent

No-contact orders that bar the defendant from contact with the defendant’s own children — outside of family-violence cases where the children are alleged victims — raise substantive due-process and fundamental-right concerns. Tailored alternatives (supervised visitation, third-party transfers) are usually the appropriate response to legitimate safety concerns.

Procedure for modifying a 17.40 condition

The modification mechanic under Article 17.09 has its own procedural steps.

1. The motion identifies the specific condition challenged and the legal basis for modification.
2. Notice is provided to the State, typically through the assigned prosecutor.
3. The court schedules a hearing — sometimes at the next available docket, sometimes on an expedited basis if good cause is shown.
4. The hearing is an evidentiary one. Either side can call witnesses, present documents, and argue.
5. The court rules on the motion, either modifying the condition or denying the motion. The ruling is generally in a written order.
6. If the court modifies, the new condition takes effect immediately or as specified in the order.
7. If the court denies, the defendant remains subject to the original condition and continued non-compliance can result in bond revocation.

In some postures, the defense and prosecution can agree to a modified condition without a contested hearing. The court still must enter the modification by written order to make it enforceable.

Typical 17.40 condition packages by offense type

The 17.40 conditions imposed in DFW magistrate practice fall into recurring packages tied to the alleged offense.

The exact condition package is calibrated to the case’s safety concerns. Magistrates and trial courts have discretion within the “reasonable, related to safety” framework to tailor conditions, and the typical packages reflect what local practice has settled into.

What to do if you have a 17.40 condition you cannot live with

The compliance-first principle controls. Comply with the condition until it has been modified. A condition that you think is unreasonable does not become unenforceable until a court says it is. Violating it first and litigating it later puts you in a worse posture.

The litigation move is Article 17.09. The motion should be supported by:

1. A clear identification of the condition challenged.
2. An evidentiary record explaining why the condition is unreasonable or broader than necessary.
3. A proposed alternative that addresses the legitimate safety concern.
4. If applicable, the alleged victim’s position on the modification — the State’s position is often driven by the victim’s.

For conditions that touch constitutional ground — speech, religious exercise, parenting rights — the motion should be framed with the constitutional analysis explicit. Wagner v. State, 539 S.W.3d 298, 312–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (controlling Texas overbreadth framework — statutes restricting speech in protective-order/bond-condition contexts are not facially overbroad where the restriction applies only to a limited population subject to judicial order and the conduct prohibited falls outside First Amendment protection); see also Boes v. State, 675 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2023) (applying Wagner to a Facebook-post protective-order violation); Ex parte Martinez, No. 02-15-00353-CR, 2015 WL 9598530 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 31, 2015, pet. ref'd) (rejecting due-process vagueness challenge to no-contact bond provision). No published decision squarely addresses a First Amendment overbreadth challenge to Art. 17.40 itself; Wagner supplies the controlling framework.