Harrison, William Buford
WR-36,092-04
| Tex. App. | Jul 16, 2015Background
- On Feb. 10, 2014, HPD officers approached William Buford Harrison in a parking lot after he left a methadone clinic; officers questioned and surrounded him.
- Officer D.G. Davis removed Harrison’s smartphone during the encounter, took it to his patrol car, and reviewed its contents without a warrant, later reporting numerous narcotics-related texts.
- After the phone review officers searched Harrison’s person, seizing approximately $708.60, methadone, a film canister, and heroin; Harrison was arrested and charged with possession/distribution-related offenses.
- The incident report and a Notice of Seizure document the phone review, the cash seizure, and a K-9 alert; the DA’s office authorized the seizure and arrest.
- Harrison filed a pro se habeas application (Art. 11.07) seeking an evidentiary hearing and relief, asserting Fourth Amendment violations, a flawed/prejudicial grand-jury indictment process, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless search of smartphone | Harrison: officers searched his smartphone without a warrant after the stop was completed; this violated the Fourth Amendment and tainted the evidence (relying on Riley). | State (as characterized in pleading): uses standard forms asserting proper police conduct; argues the search/seizure were lawful or incident to arrest. | Not resolved in this memorandum — applicant requests evidentiary hearing and suppression relief. |
| Legality of subsequent search/seizure of person and seizure of contraband/cash | Harrison: the phone search produced the ‘‘path’’ to searching his person; once the purpose of the stop ended the officers conducted a fishing expedition, rendering subsequent seizures unlawful. | State: contends seizure was lawful per officers’ observations and search-incident or investigative exception (as implied by seizure report). | Not resolved; claim raised on habeas, hearing requested. |
| Grand-jury indictment and enhancement paragraphs prejudiced indictment | Harrison: pre-prepared enhancement paragraphs and Harris County’s ‘‘key-man/pick-a-pal’’ grand-jury selection system unfairly prejudiced the grand jury and produced a flawed indictment. | State: (implied) indictment is valid; grand-jury procedure customary in county practice. | Not resolved in memorandum; applicant urges relief based on due-process concerns. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Harrison: retained counsel failed to investigate, file pretrial motions, pursue suppression or evidentiary hearings, or challenge the indictment; counsel misled applicant about case progress and induced a plea. | State: (implied) representation was adequate or petitioner cannot meet Strickland prejudice/deficiency standard. | Not resolved; applicant invokes Strickland and seeks habeas relief and a new trial or hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (warrant required for most searches of data on a cell phone seized incident to arrest)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (burden-shifting framework for Fourth Amendment claims in habeas context)
- Ex parte Duffy, 607 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (standards for ineffective assistance and retained counsel misconduct)