Jay Yoon Chung v. State
475 S.W.3d 378
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Trooper Putz stopped Jay Yoon Chung’s van on I‑45 after dispatch reported a reckless white van and Putz observed the van following another vehicle too closely.
- During the stop Chung appeared nervous, consented briefly to a vehicle search, then withdrew consent; a drug dog later alerted and officers found drug paraphernalia and cocaine residue in the vehicle.
- Trooper Putz later viewed Chung’s cell phone at DPS headquarters without a warrant; he saw images and text messages suggesting underage girls and drug activity, then obtained a warrant and conducted a fuller search.
- Chung moved to suppress (1) all evidence from the traffic stop, (2) statements (withdrawn), and (3) evidence from the phone; the trial court denied the first and third motions without written findings.
- A jury convicted Chung of possession and, with two prior indecency-with-a-child enhancements, sentenced him to 20 years. Chung appealed, challenging the traffic stop’s legality and the warrantless phone search.
- The appellate court upheld the stop (reasonable suspicion) but held the warrantless search of the phone was not justified under consent, automobile exception, or search‑incident‑to‑arrest, and therefore should have been suppressed; the court reversed and remanded for a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chung) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable suspicion for traffic stop | Stop unlawful because dispatch originated from an anonymous tip (Navarette) and officer’s testimony was conclusory | Trooper observed following-too-closely and moderate traffic; independent observation plus dispatch justified stop | Upheld: officer had reasonable suspicion based on his contemporaneous observation of a traffic violation |
| Voluntary consent to search phone | No general consent; Chung only gave password to see who was calling | State argues Chung consented when he provided password | Rejected: password was given only to identify caller; State failed to prove voluntary consent by clear and convincing evidence |
| Automobile exception to warrant requirement for phone search | Warrantless phone search invalid; phone was not in car when searched and phone is not a mere container | State argues dog alert to vehicle and phone’s earlier presence in vehicle gave probable cause to search phone | Rejected: dog alert to vehicle did not supply probable cause to search a phone in custody; court unwilling to treat phone as a vehicle container |
| Search incident to arrest (or other exceptions) | Search at DPS hours after arrest was not contemporaneous or within immediate control; Riley requires warrant for cell‑phone searches | State contends search incident to arrest or other exceptions apply and asks Riley not be applied retroactively | Rejected: search was not substantially contemporaneous with arrest and Riley governs cell‑phone searches; warrantless search unlawful; evidence tainted warrant and should have been suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent to search)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (cell‑phone searches generally require a warrant)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (anonymous tips rarely alone establish reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Weaver, 349 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. Crim. App.) (drug‑dog alerts and probable cause analysis)
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (automobile/container search rule)
- State v. Granville, 423 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. Crim. App.) (privacy interests in cell‑phone contents)