Ruiz, Lauro Eduardo, 577 S.W.3d 543

Background

Appellee (Ruiz), a substitute teacher, was accused by students of taking up-skirt photos; school administrators (including Principal Saenz) seized his phone during an office meeting.
Saenz scrolled through photos and viewed images of students’ legs; he then sealed the phone in an envelope and turned it over to police.
Police later obtained search warrants for the phone and found incriminating images; Ruiz was charged with attempted production of sexual performance by a child.
Ruiz moved to suppress the phone evidence, arguing Saenz’s warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Trial court granted suppression as fruit of the poisonous tree; the court of appeals reversed, holding the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private actors and Ruiz failed to prove Saenz violated state or federal law.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court of appeals: the Fourth Amendment restraints apply only to government action, Article 38.23 does not extend the Constitution to private individuals, and Ruiz failed to prove a statutory breach of computer security.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to Saenz’s search	Ruiz: Saenz’s search violated Fourth Amendment warrant requirement; evidence must be suppressed	State: Saenz acted as a private individual, so Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply	Held: Fourth Amendment applies only to government actors; no constitutional violation by Saenz
Whether Art. 38.23 requires suppression for private Fourth Amendment violations	Ruiz: Miles and Article 38.23 mean private actors cannot do what police cannot; thus suppression required	State: Article 38.23 applies to violations of state/federal law by "other person," not to extend the Constitution to private citizens	Held: Article 38.23 does not extend the Fourth Amendment to private citizens; Miles limited to criminal-law violations by private actors
Whether Miles v. State means private persons cannot do what officers cannot	Ruiz: Miles implies private searches that police could not do must be suppressed	State: Miles addressed private violations of criminal law, not constitutional restraints; should be limited to that context	Held: Miles is limited to cases involving private criminal-law violations; it does not create constitutional obligations for private actors
Whether Saenz committed breach of computer security under Tex. Penal Code §33.02	Ruiz: Saenz knowingly accessed phone without consent and violated §33.02, triggering suppression under Art. 38.23	State: Even if access occurred, statutory defense applies because Saenz acted to facilitate a lawful police investigation	Held: Ruiz failed to meet burden to show statutory violation; record supports defendant’s statutory-defense (intent to facilitate lawful law-enforcement search)

Key Cases Cited

Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921) (Fourth Amendment is a restraint on government, not private parties)
Walter v. U. S., 447 U.S. 649 (1980) (wrongful private searches do not invoke the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule)
Gillett v. State, 588 S.W.2d 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment applies only to governmental action)
Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (private actor whose conduct mirrors lawful police action may not trigger Article 38.23 suppression; rule arose in criminal-law context)
State v. Johnson, 939 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Article 38.23 can require suppression for evidence illegally obtained by private persons under state criminal statutes)
Baird v. State, 398 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discussed in context of private-party evidence and criminal-law violations)
Stone v. State, 574 S.W.2d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (private-party theft of evidence at issue under Article 38.23)
Cobb v. State, 85 S.W.3d 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (private-party possession/transfer of evidence examined under Article 38.23)
Jenschke v. State, 147 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (suppression where private individuals burglarized defendant’s property to obtain evidence)
Robinson, 334 S.W.3d 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (defendant bears burden to show statutory violation requiring suppression)