State of Texas v. Granville, Anthony
2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 237
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2014Background
- Anthony Granville, a high-school student, was arrested for a Class C misdemeanor and his cell phone was taken and placed in the jail property room.
- Officer Harrell retrieved Granville’s phone from the jail property room, turned it on, and searched its contents without a warrant to find a photograph.
- Granville was charged with Improper Visual Photography; he moved to suppress, arguing a privacy expectation in his phone persisted despite storage in the jail inventory.
- The trial court found Granville had a subjective, reasonable, and legitimate privacy expectation in the contents of the phone even while in jail storage and suppressed the evidence.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding Granville retained a legitimate privacy expectation in the phone’s contents, notwithstanding its inventory in jail.
- The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately held that a cell phone is not like a pair of pants and that Granville did not lose a reasonable privacy expectation in its contents merely because the phone was stored in a jail property room; a warrant was required to search the contents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Granville had standing to challenge the search of his cell phone | Granville had a subjective and legitimate privacy expectation in his phone’s contents. | Granville’s privacy rights were diminished by arrest and storage; owner status alone suffices for standing. | Granville had standing; but the Court analyzes both subjective and objective expectations under Fourth Amendment standing. |
| Whether a cell phone retained a reasonable expectation of privacy when stored in a jail property room | The phone’s contents remain private despite inventoried jail storage. | Arrestees’ privacy in personal effects diminishes when in custody and stored by police. | The contents retain a privacy interest; a warrant is required to search inventoried cell-phone contents. |
| Whether a search of an inventoried arrestee’s cell phone is permissible under the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine | If probable cause exists, police may search anything in the jail property room. | Search-incident-to-arrest allows contemporaneous searches only; inventoryed items are not exempt. | Not permissible here; the search was not incident to arrest and required a warrant. |
| Whether the jail’s inventory and confinement of the phone justified a broad, non-warranted search of its contents | Privacy interests persist in inventoryed property; searching its contents is overly invasive. | Diminished privacy in jail context permits reduced protections for personal effects. | Even with inventory, the contents were protected; a warrant was required to search contents. |
| What standard governs whether a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in a modern cell phone | Modern phones store vast private data; privacy in contents should be protected. | Ownership alone demonstrates standing; the majority errs by elevating mere possession. | The court adopts that a cell phone’s contents deserve heightened privacy protection and requires a warrant to search. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (arrestees retain some privacy in belongings; inventory reduces but does not erase privacy in personal effects)
- Edwards v. United States, 415 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1974) (search incident to arrest; contemporaneity and limits of exigency in postarrest searches)
- Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits on search-incident-to-arrest, especially after custodial control established)
- Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (U.S. 1981) (private searches can frustrate privacy; government may infringe only on remaining privacy)
- United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013) (cell-phone contents generally highly private; warrant required for content search)
- Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (property-based and Katz theories combined; trespass and privacy tests addressed)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (establishes reasonable expectation of privacy as central to Fourth Amendment; standing concept evolved)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (cell-phone data requires warrants; contemporary cases address scope of searches)