Eric Clark Allen v. State
12-15-00131-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 31, 2015Background
- On Dec. 3, 2013, Officer Mike Jenkins approached Eric Clark Allen at a high-school basketball game after recognizing him from a prior trespass notice related to alleged inappropriate photos at a previous game.
- Jenkins and Allen spoke in the patrol car; Jenkins asked to see Allen’s cell phone to check for inappropriate pictures and Allen handed the phone over and granted consent to look through it.
- Jenkins testified he told Allen he could revoke consent; Allen did not revoke. While viewing the phone, Jenkins saw images he believed were child pornography, stopped the consensual search, obtained a warrant, and seized the phone for a forensic exam.
- The next day, Officer Mike Jones obtained recorded consent from Allen to search his residence, but Allen’s father refused consent at the premises; officers then secured a warrant.
- Allen was later Mirandized, waived rights, and gave a statement. The State charged him with possession/promotion of child pornography and the trial court denied Allen’s motion to suppress the phone evidence; the State appeals that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to search the phone was voluntary | State: Allen voluntarily gave consent in the patrol car and was informed he could revoke it; totality supports voluntariness | Allen: Consent was coerced because Jenkins threatened arrest if phone not surrendered | Trial court found consent voluntary; appellate brief urges affirmance |
| Whether evidence from phone search required a warrant | State: Consent was an exception to the warrant requirement; officer ceased search and obtained warrant after finding illegal images | Allen: Initial search without a warrant violated Fourth Amendment | Court accepted that valid consent justified initial review and officers obtained a warrant once probable cause appeared |
| Whether mental capacity undermined voluntariness | State: Forensic evaluation showed verbal IQ in normal range and Allen was aware and competent to consent | Allen: Low IQ generally (IQ 75) suggests possible incapacity to consent | Trial court credited voluntariness; appellate brief emphasizes normal verbal IQ and comprehension |
| Whether subsequent residence search consent was valid | State: Allen consented on recorded video but father later refused at the residence; officers obtained a warrant thereafter | Allen: Any consent from Allen insufficient or coerced | Officers respected refusal and secured a warrant; no unlawful residence search occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. State, 820 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Harrison v. State, 205 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (consent as exception to warrant requirement)
- Juarez v. State, 758 S.W.2d 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (trial court fact findings on voluntariness reviewed deferentially)
- Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1985) (objective-reasonable-person perspective in consent analysis)
- Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (totality-of-circumstances test for consent)
- State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (appellate review standard for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Pena, 143 F.3d 1363 (10th Cir. 1998) (factors relevant to voluntariness of consent)