Eric Clark Allen v. State
12-15-00131-CR
Tex. App.Jul 30, 2015Background
- Appellant Eric Clark Allen was charged in Angelina County with 13 counts of possession/promotion of child pornography after officers searched his cell phone at a high-school basketball game.
- Huntington ISD officers observed Allen at the game; one officer asked him to step outside and sit in the patrol car to talk.
- Officer Jenkins testified Allen handed over his phone and the officer viewed the camera roll for ~15–20 images over ~5 minutes before seeing an allegedly pornographic image of a young child and then seized the phone.
- No warrant was obtained prior to the initial search; police later sought a warrant and recorded a subsequent attempt to memorialize consent.
- Allen testified he did not voluntarily consent and that officers threatened to jail him if he refused. Expert testimony at sentencing described Allen’s low IQ and social deficits, argued relevant to voluntariness.
- The trial court denied Allen’s motion to suppress; Allen pled no contest, was sentenced to seven years, and was allowed to appeal the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of the phone was lawful | The search violated the Fourth Amendment and Texas Constitution because there was no warrant or probable cause | Search was conducted following apparent consent and investigatory questioning by officers | Trial court denied the motion to suppress (found search admissible) |
| Whether officers had probable cause to search the phone | Hearsay and observations (phone in hand, past trespass report) did not establish probable cause; officer admitted he did not see a crime | Officers relied on information from other school officials and suspicious behavior to justify investigation | Trial court rejected suppression; record shows disputed and weak probable-cause basis but court denied relief |
| Whether consent to search was voluntary | Allen asserts consent was coerced: he was isolated in a squad car and told he would be jailed if he refused | State contends Allen voluntarily handed over the phone (and subsequently officers limited further search until they obtained a warrant) | Trial court found evidence admissible; it denied suppression despite testimony about coercion |
| Whether Riley (cell‑phone search precedent) required a warrant here | Allen argues Riley requires a warrant for cell‑phone searches and the warrantless search was unlawful | State argues circumstances permitted viewing/limited search or that consent justified initial access | Trial court denied suppression; the record frames Riley as favoring warrants but court admitted the evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell‑phone data is highly private; warrants generally required before full forensic searches)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (warrant requirement and exceptions to it)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances)
- Johnson v. United States, 255 U.S. 313 (1921) (consent given in submission to authority is not voluntary waiver)
- Swain v. State, 181 S.W.3d 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (standard of review for suppression rulings is abuse of discretion)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (totality‑of‑circumstances approach to Fourth Amendment issues)