595 S.W.3d 691
Tex. Crim. App.2020Background
- Christopher Holder was charged with capital murder after investigators found Billy Tanner stabbed and burned; DNA from gloves at the scene matched Holder and an inmate informant implicated him.
- Plano police obtained a court order to AT&T for 23 days of Holder’s historical cell-site location information (CSLI) covering Oct. 20–Nov. 12, 2012; AT&T initially refused because it believed probable cause was required, and an officer revised the petition language before a judge signed it.
- The CSLI contradicted Holder’s alibi (showing his phone in Tanner’s tower area during the relevant period) and was used to confront him; police also relied on other inculpatory evidence (gloves/DNA; informant statements).
- Holder moved to suppress the CSLI under the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) (“specific and articulable facts” standard) and under Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution; the trial court denied suppression and the court of appeals affirmed.
- On discretionary review the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) declined the SCA statutory claim (citing Sims) but—after Carpenter—granted review on Article I, Section 9, asked for briefing, and reconsidered whether the third‑party doctrine applies to CSLI under the Texas Constitution.
- The CCA concluded Holder had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the 23 days of CSLI and that the state’s petition did not establish probable cause; it reversed the court of appeals and remanded for the court of appeals to determine harm from the admission of the CSLI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether CSLI should be suppressed under the SCA’s “specific and articulable facts” standard | Holder: SCA standard not met; records should be suppressed | State: SCA production was lawful / suppression not warranted | CCA: Rejected statutory suppression claim—Sims holds suppression is not available for non‑constitutional SCA violations; statutory ground overruled |
| 2) Whether Holder had a reasonable expectation of privacy in 23 days of historical CSLI under Tex. Const. art. I, §9 | Holder: Third‑party doctrine should not defeat privacy in CSLI; Article I, §9 protects CSLI | State: Apply Fourth Amendment third‑party doctrine; no protected privacy interest | CCA: Adopted Carpenter reasoning; third‑party doctrine does not defeat privacy in CSLI—Holder had a protected expectation of privacy |
| 3) Whether the CSLI search was reasonable and what remedy applies | Holder: Search violated Article I, §9 and CSLI should be suppressed under Article 38.23 | State: Argued investigation needs / contested sufficiency; conceded petition lacked probable cause at oral argument | CCA: Search unreasonable because no probable cause supported the petition; reversed and remanded for the court of appeals to decide whether admission was harmful |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (Sup. Ct.) (historical CSLI implicates detailed, long‑term location privacy; third‑party doctrine inapplicable)
- Sims v. State, 569 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. Crim. App.) (suppression not available remedy for non‑constitutional SCA violations)
- Hankston v. State, 517 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. Crim. App.) (prior Texas analysis applying third‑party doctrine to CSLI; reconsidered post‑Carpenter)
- Ford v. State, 477 S.W.3d 321 (Tex. Crim. App.) (earlier prediction that third‑party doctrine applied to CSLI)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (Sup. Ct.) (long‑term GPS monitoring raises heightened privacy concerns)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (Sup. Ct.) (limited public tracking less intrusive than continuous long‑term surveillance)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (Sup. Ct.) (business records held by third parties not protected by expectation of privacy)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (Sup. Ct.) (pen‑register numbers conveyed to phone company not protected by expectation of privacy)
- Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Texas precedent on pen registers and Article I, §9)