Miller v. State
335 S.W.3d 847
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- May 4, 2007, Elgin PD officer Edwards found a thumb drive in the patrol room, an area accessible to officers and others.
- Edwards opened the drive, found a folder likely containing porn, and secured the drive for supervision; others later reviewed it and turned it to the OAG.
- OAG investigation led to Miller, a former Elgin officer, who consented to a forensics search of the drive and to searches of his laptop and desktop.
- Miller testified he left the drive in the patrol room on prior occasions, believed the room was private, and had an arguable expectation of privacy in the drive.
- During the suppression hearing Miller claimed his consent and the overall searches were tainted by improper initial retrieval of the drive; he argued a Fourth Amendment/Article I §9 violation.
- District court denied suppression for lack of standing and the appeal followed, with Miller pleading guilty and challenging on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial search/seizure violated Fourth Amendment/Article I §9 | Miller contends he had a privacy interest in the drive and warrantless search violated rights | State argues no standing and that privacy was not reasonably maintained given circumstances | No abuse; suppression denied |
| Whether consent searches were valid under Article 38.23 and voluntariness standard | Consent tainted by prior violation and coercive circumstances | Consent obtained voluntarily under totality of circumstances; trial court credibility upheld | Consent valid; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 865 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) (privacy expectations framework)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (standing requires legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (privacy factors for expectation of privacy)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (establishes privacy expectations and third-party doctrine context)
- Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (factors for assessability of objective privacy expectations)
- Voyles v. State, 133 S.W.3d 303 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004) (absence of privacy expectation in work computer context)
- Brackens v. State, 312 S.W.3d 831 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (conduct or circumstances can lessen privacy expectations)
- Lown v. State, 172 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (lack of precautions undermines privacy expectations)
- Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (U.S. Supreme Court 1960) (abandonment doctrine under Fourth Amendment)
- McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (abandonment requires intent and lack of police misconduct)