Ford, Jon Thomas
PD-1396-14
| Tex. App. | Apr 30, 2015Background
- Petitioner Jon Thomas Ford challenged the warrantless acquisition of his historical cell‑site data (HCD) and related cellphone records obtained from AT&T during a murder investigation.
- The State obtained orders/subpoenas for HCD, texts, GPS data, billing and subscriber information without a traditional probable‑cause search warrant; defense argues the applications did not allege probable cause or comply with statutory standards.
- Ford asserted Fourth Amendment, First Amendment (associational rights), and Texas Constitution (Art. I, §9) claims and relied on Richardson v. State to argue third‑party doctrine should not authorize warrantless collection.
- Defense contends HCD and other records were voluntarily conveyed to a third party and obtainable under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and related statutory procedures.
- The Court of Appeals applied the third‑party records doctrine and upheld the collection; a dissent contended the warrantless seizure violated Ford’s privacy and associational rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless collection of involuntarily conveyed HCD is a Fourth Amendment search | Ford: HCD reveals detailed location and associational data; society recognizes privacy expectation; warrant required | State: HCD is third‑party business record voluntarily conveyed to carrier and obtainable under SCA/statutory orders | Court of Appeals treated HCD as third‑party record (no warrant), dissent disagreed; discretionary review granted to address issue |
| Whether third‑party doctrine applies to modern digital/location data | Ford: doctrine is outdated; users do not forfeit privacy by using essential services; Richardson requires stronger protection under Texas Constitution | State: voluntary disclosure to provider negates expectation of privacy; Smith/Miller principles control | Lower court applied third‑party doctrine; petitioner urges overruling/limitation of doctrine for HCD |
| Whether SCA/Article 18.21 procedures were adequate/authorized for HCD | Ford: SCA/Art.18.21 were enacted for 1980s technology and do not cover involuntary connection/location data; applications failed statutory "reasonable belief" showing | State: statutory mechanisms suffice to compel carrier records without warrant | Ford argues statutory process was inapplicable and insufficient; issue presented for high‑court review |
| Whether First Amendment/associational rights were chilled by warrantless HCD collection | Ford: HCD reveals associations, movements, and communications content patterns, chilling association; Riley and Jones support protection | State: obtaining records for investigation is lawful under third‑party/ statutory framework | Dissent emphasized First Amendment/associational concerns; lower court did not suppress records |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (held pen register use implicated Texas constitutional protection and limited third‑party doctrine application)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (cellphone data implicates heightened privacy interests; warrants generally required to search modern phones)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (long‑term location tracking can implicate Fourth Amendment privacy expectations)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (pen‑register dialed‑number information not protected by Fourth Amendment under third‑party doctrine)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1976) (bank records held not subject to Fourth Amendment privacy expectation under third‑party doctrine)
- In re Applications of the U.S.A. for Historical Cell‑Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (Fifth Circuit considered SCA orders for HCD and narrowed government requests)
- Tracey v. State, 152 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 2014) (state decision finding warrant required for prospective cell‑site location information in certain circumstances)
- Barfield v. State, 416 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (applied Fifth Circuit reasoning on HCD/SCA subpoenas)
- Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (U.S. 1965) (searches implicating First Amendment materials require particularity and scrupulous exactitude)
- State v. Granville, 423 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discussed privacy expectations in digital contexts)