Home invasion by three perps where one perp shoots home owner, but home owner gets shot into shooter perp who dies running from the scene. Home owner dies a few days later at hospital from gunshot he suffered.
The two other perps that were in house are charged with capital murder. Also charged is a niece of the victim who helped plan the break in.
Niece's boyfriend is the dead perp at the scene. Her attorney has filed a motion to suppress on her incriminating text messages on dead perp's cell phone. Police recovered dead perp's cell phone at the scene and forwarded to DPS crime lab for analysis. No warrant was obtained to go into dead perp's phone at the scene or at the lab.
Has anyone dealt with this issue? Standing seems to be a major hurdle for the defendant. Expectation of privacy in another person's cell phone you don't own or control in any way. Any case cites, thoughts, or advice are greatly appreciated.
Who actually owned the phone. Was it in her name? Don't see how she has standing otherwise.
The phone belonged to the dead perp. Phone in his name. Defendant has no ownership or control over the phone at all.
9.Citing Refs. With Analysis Available
Contreras v. State, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7336
Trial court did not err by admitting text messages defendant had sent to a murdered child's mother. Defendant had no standing to complain that the seizure of mother's cell phone violated his constitutional rights. Defendant failed to meet his burden to show that he personally had a reasonable expectation of privacy that the government violated.
Contreras v. State, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7336, 2012 WL 3737714 (Tex. App. Fort Worth Aug. 30, 2012)
|Powered by Social Strata|
© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.