Royston, Ronnie Hoyt, PD-0914-15

Ronnie Hoyt Royston was convicted under Tex. Penal Code § 21.15(b)(2) for surreptitiously photographing a 16‑year‑old in a Kohl’s dressing room using an iPhone placed in video mode under a bench.
Store patrons found the phone in the dressing room, viewed its contents (including photos and video of Royston hiding the phone), and handed the phone to police.
Police obtained a warrant to access the locked phone; after obtaining the passcode they extracted photos and video used at trial.
Royston moved to suppress the phone and its contents and requested an Article 38.23 jury instruction alleging the phone had been stolen (illegal seizure) and/or he had not abandoned it. The trial court denied suppression and refused the Article 38.23 instruction.
The jury convicted Royston; the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Royston abandoned the phone and thus lacked standing to challenge the search/seizure. Royston sought discretionary review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Royston)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Royston retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the iPhone contents after leaving it in the dressing room	Royston: contents remained private because the phone was password‑protected; abandonment of the hardware does not negate privacy in inaccessible onboard data	State: Royston abandoned the phone by hiding it in a public dressing room and leaving the store, so he lacked standing to challenge the search of the phone or its contents	Court: Royston abandoned the phone; no reasonable expectation of privacy at time of search; affirm denial of suppression
Whether the women who found/viewed the phone committed theft (raising disputed fact entitling Royston to an Article 38.23 jury instruction)	Royston: sister’s statements ("it's mine") and temporary possession show theft was complete when they viewed contents, so evidence derived from that alleged theft should be excluded or the jury instructed	State: the women found the phone in a public dressing room and treated it as found property; their conduct did not amount to theft and no disputed material fact on abandonment exists	Court: no disputed factual issue on abandonment; trial court correctly concluded no standing and properly refused Article 38.23 instruction

State v. Granville, 423 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (recognizing expectation of privacy in cell‑phone contents and circumstances where it may be lost, including abandonment)
Matthews v. State, 431 S.W.3d 596 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding voluntary abandonment of property defeats standing to challenge search)
Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (applying Article 38.23 exclusionary rule to evidence obtained by private persons where applicable)
Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (establishing bifurcated standard of review for suppression rulings)
Barnes v. State, 824 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (discussion of when a theft is complete)
Proctor v. State, 967 S.W.2d 840 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (overruled on other grounds; cited regarding theft completion concepts)