State v. Anthony Granville, 373 S.W.3d 218

Granville was arrested for a school disturbance and his cell phone was taken into custody during booking.
An officer, unrelated to the arrest, turned on and searched the impounded phone seeking a photo of a student urinating in a school urinal.
The search yielded a photo, leading to an indictment for Improper Photography or Visual Recording.
Granville moved to suppress the phone-derived evidence; the trial court granted suppression.
The appellate court reviews whether a warrantless search of an impounded cell phone can be justified by probable cause or lack of privacy, and upholds suppression.
The court emphasizes cell phones are not like clothing and that there remains a privacy interest in digital data even when impounded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a warrantless search of an impounded cell phone permissible?	Granville argues the search was unlawful without a warrant.	State contends probable cause and lack of privacy justify a jail-property search.	Not permissible; suppression affirmed.
Does an arrestee have a reasonable expectation of privacy in data on a cell phone impounded during booking?	Granville maintains data on his phone is private and protected.	State asserts minimal or no privacy in jail settings for impounded property.	Yes, there is a protected privacy expectation in data on the phone.
Does probable cause alone justify a warrantless search of the phone?	Granville contends probable cause does not eliminate need for a warrant to search personal data.	State argues probable cause plus jail-property justification allows warrantless search.	No; probable cause without a warrant does not justify the search.
Does impoundment of property erase privacy expectations in electronic data?	Granville argues privacy survives impoundment given the data's nature and access controls.	State treats phone as impounded property with diminished privacy expectations.	Privacy persists in data and access, requiring a warrant.

Oles v. State, 993 S.W.2d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (arrestees retain some privacy in personal effects taken after arrest)
United States v. Lilly, 576 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir. 1978) (privacy considerations in electronic data under Fourth Amendment)
Rodriguez v. State, 653 S.W.2d 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (doorway to reasonable expectation of privacy in belongings)
McGee v. State, 105 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (privacy expectations diminished but not eliminated in jail context)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (prisoner has no general expectation of privacy in cells)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (impoundment inventory search safeguards)
Ex parte Green, 688 S.W.2d 555 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (pretrial detainees may have greater constitutional protection)
Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) (text messages sometimes treated as incident to arrest; distinguish inventory searches)
Curtis, 635 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2011) (limits on applying Finley to non-arrest inventory contexts)
Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1984) ( Fourth Amendment limits on tracking devices and data)