Natalie Ausbie Reynolds v. State
507 S.W.3d 805
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- A.K., a 15-year-old reported runaway with alleged drug use and relationships with adult men, was taken to juvenile detention then placed with the Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) on June 13–14, 2012.
- Department supervisor Natalie Ausbie Reynolds and investigator Rebekah Ross seized A.K.’s personal items, including her cell phone; A.K. objected and later testified both women searched the phone and retrieved contact information.
- No warrant, court order, arrest, or consent to search the phone existed at the time; a court order giving the Department custody issued the following day.
- Reynolds was charged and convicted by bench trial of official oppression under Tex. Penal Code § 39.03(a)(1) for intentionally subjecting A.K. to an unlawful search/seizure knowing it was unlawful; sentence was suspended with community supervision.
- On appeal, Reynolds argued the evidence was legally insufficient on three fronts: (1) she did not seize/search the phone or act as a party to Ross; (2) her conduct was lawful (not tortious) given exigent circumstances or de facto parental authority; and (3) she lacked knowledge that her conduct was unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reynolds seized/searched A.K.’s phone or was a party to Ross’ conduct | State: testimony showed Reynolds possessed and looked through the phone and acted with Ross | Reynolds: she did not personally search/seize the phone or was not a party to Ross’ acts | Court: sufficient evidence Reynolds either acted or was a party to the seizure/search; trial court could credit testimony that Reynolds retained and searched phone |
| Whether the seizure/search was lawful (criminal or tortious) | State: no warrant/consent/exception; evidence showed motive was investigatory (drug evidence), not placement | Reynolds: acting under Family Code emergency authority and in loco parentis to find placement justified seizure/search | Court: evidence did not compel finding of exigency or lawful purpose; fact-finder could conclude motive was investigatory and actions were unauthorized and tortious |
| Whether A.K. had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her cell phone | State: cell-phone privacy is established; A.K. exhibited subjective expectation | Reynolds: A.K.’s status and the emergency justified reduced expectation/ intrusion | Court: A.K. had a reasonable expectation of privacy; no warrant, consent, or valid exception existed to justify search |
| Whether Reynolds knew the conduct was unlawful (mens rea) | State: Reynolds was trained, supervisors expressed concerns, and circumstances put her on notice | Reynolds: she reasonably believed conduct was authorized by law and would have qualified immunity in civil context | Court: evidence supported that Reynolds knew actions were tortious/unlawful; reasonable-belief defense not compelled; conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (legal-sufficiency standard under Jackson review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence and fact-finder deference)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App.) (hypothetically correct jury charge framework)
- United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir.) (reasonable expectation of privacy in cell-phone contents)
- United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562 (5th Cir.) (cell-phone searches require probable cause or valid exception)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (warrantless search of cell-phone digital contents during arrest is unconstitutional)