The State of Texas v. Bobbie Lee Lankford

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Eighth District, considers the State’s appeal from an order suppressing evidence obtained through a forensic examination of a cell phone seized under a search warrant. The court concludes that the justice of the peace had authority to issue the warrant and that law enforcement acted in objective good faith, reverses the suppression order, and remands for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A justice of the peace, as a magistrate, had authority to issue a warrant for the seizure of the cell phone and electronic devices under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 18.02, including subsections (8), (9), and (14), and nothing in article 18.0215 limited the issuing judge to a licensed attorney.
2. The first warrant, considered together with the affidavit incorporated by reference, could be construed to authorize a forensic examination of the seized electronic devices, including the Cricket Alcatel.
3. Even assuming the first warrant did not expressly or adequately authorize the forensic examination, the evidence was not subject to exclusion because the officer acted in objective good-faith reliance on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.
4. Even assuming the affidavit and warrant lacked specificity concerning the particular phone and its owner, the officer's reliance was objectively reasonable because the affidavit supplied probable cause connecting the devices to the suspected offense and limited the search to child-pornography images.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a justice of the peace had authority to issue the warrant authorizing seizure of electronic devices, and potentially their forensic examination, under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure articles 18.01, 18.02, and 18.0215.
2. Whether the first warrant, read together with the incorporated affidavit, authorized a forensic examination of the seized electronic devices.
3. Whether the officer acted in objective good-faith reliance on the first warrant despite any deficiency in the warrant's authorization or particularity.
4. Whether the results of the second forensic examination were admissible; the court did not reach this issue after holding the first examination's results admissible.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded