Page 27 - TPA Journal March April 2025

assigned Detective Michael Ramirez to investi- forensic cell phone examiner himself, knew that
gate the robbery. Detective Ramirez spoke with content deleted from phones could sometimes be
some of the restaurant employees. One of the recovered. Similarly, the affidavit also later stated
employees told Detective Ramirez that Appellant that cell phones save and delete information on
had posted several videos that captured the initial both the internal memory system and the SIM
police response to the robbery on Snapchat, a card, so even though an item may have been delet-
social media platform. The employee showed ed, it could still be possible to recover the deleted
Detective Ramirez the videos on her phone, but files. Detective Ramirez recited in the affidavit
Detective Ramirez did not obtain a copy or record- that Appellant’s motives for recording the initial
ing of the videos from the employee. He did not investigation were unknown. Moreover, Detective
contact Appellant about the Snapchat video or oth- Ramirez sought to discover whether Appellant
erwise attempt to secure the video that day. might have “recorded the actual robbery as he has
Instead, Detective Ramirez called Appellant three shown an inclination to record with his cell phone
days later and asked him to provide a formal state- despite the propriety of the activity.” Finally,
ment. Appellant agreed to meet with Detective Detective Ramirez also relied in the affidavit upon
Ramirez, and Detective Ramirez drove Appellant Appellant’s refusal to consent to the search of the
to the Stafford Police Department. Once there, phone as support for the search warrant.
Detective Ramirez asked Appellant to show him The warrant issued the same day as the applica-
the videos from Snapchat. Appellant explained tion. The Warrant Return and Inventory indicated
that Snapchat automatically deleted the videos that the warrant was not executed, however, until
after 24 hours and told Detective Ramirez that he two days later, which was four days after the
did not have any other videos relevant to the phone had been seized. The search of the phone
investigation. pursuant to the search warrant revealed text mes-
Detective Ramirez told Appellant that he only had sages that incriminated Appellant. It is unclear
two options: either (1) give consent to search the whether the Snapchat video was obtained during
phone, in which case Appellant would have the the search.
phone back quickly, or (2) Detective Ramirez Police arrested Appellant on January 10, 2016.
would have to seize the phone and obtain a search The State indicted Appellant for aggravated rob-
warrant, which would take much longer. Appellant bery. Appellant pleaded not guilty and elected to
responded that Detective Ramirez should get a proceed with a jury trial.
search warrant, at which point Detective Ramirez Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress. In
seized Appellant’s phone. Detective Ramirez his motion, Appellant argued that Detective
again asked Appellant for consent to search Ramirez’s warrantless seizure of his cell phone
Appellant’s phone and told him that he had never violated the Fourth Amendment and asked the trial
had a search warrant denied in his decade of expe- court to suppress all evidence obtained from the
rience as a police officer. Appellant again declined phone. The trial court held a hearing on
to give Detective Ramirez consent to search the Appellant’s motion to suppress after jury selec-
phone. Detective Ramirez then seized Appellant’s tion.
phone but did not search its contents. Detective Ramirez testified at the suppression
Two days after the warrantless seizure of the hearing. His testimony largely echoed the infor-
phone, Detective Ramirez applied for a search mation in his affidavit. When asked how urgent he
warrant. The affidavit recited that Appellant told felt it was to obtain Appellant’s phone, Detective
Detective Ramirez that Snapchat deleted any Ramirez responded, “The device, not very urgent
videos after 24 hours and that he did not have any at all. I needed a copy of the videos and any other
videos that could help the investigation, which evidence.” He conceded that he did not obtain a
Detective Ramirez “refused to believe.” The affi- copy of the video from the employee who showed
davit also recited that Detective Ramirez, being a it to him. When asked why, Detective Ramirez

Mar-Apr 2025 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 23