Page 34 - TPA Journal March April 2025

the property owner suggested that Garza may have door. The record supports this finding. Thus, even
aided the authorities in their investigation out of a applying the Bazan court’s three factors as a sep-
hope of regaining the property. The Bazan court arate test yields the same result: Patel was acting
explained that such personal motives are especial- as a private party, not a Government agent.
ly likely to exist in instances where, as in the pre- Consequently, there was insufficient Government
sent case, the Government does not offer any com- involvement in this case to constitute a state
pensation for the private party’s efforts in aiding a search implicating the Fourth Amendment.
search. This circuit has taken various approaches in
Here, Patel was similarly motivated, in part, by a deciding whether a private party acts as a
private interest in protecting and maintaining his Government agent when conducting a search. In
property. He was concerned that illegal activities the instant case, Patel did not act as an agent under
were happening in his hotel and that the agents any of these various approaches; as such, we
would break down his door, either of which is a decline to specify a single approach this court
reasonable—and, more to the point, personal— must use in future cases. Regardless of whether
motivation for a hotel manager to have for open- we look to the Miller test or the supposedly dis-
ing a hotel room. Furthermore, an agent testified tinct Bazan factors, the district court did not clear-
that he told Patel not to open the door until the ly err in determining that Patel was not acting as
agent had heard from his supervisor. The fact that an agent of the Government. As such, the Fourth
Patel did so before the agent had heard back also Amendment’s protection against unreasonable
suggests that Patel had an independent, personal searches is inapplicable here for lack of
motive in opening the door beyond just assisting Government involvement in the search. The
the agents in their investigation. The district court Government can thus properly use the evidence
thus did not clearly err in concluding that Patel’s adduced by Patel’s opening the door, and
private, personal interests in conducting the search Cordova’s motion to suppress such evidence was
precluded a finding of state involvement. In sum, properly denied by the district court.
both prongs of the Miller test indicate that Patel For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
was acting as a private party, not as an agent of the U.S. v. Cordova-Espinoza, 5 th Cir., # 21-50518,
Government. 9/30/2022.
We next consider the three-factor test from Bazan. ***************************************
As the Bazan court considered these factors in ******
conjunction with its Miller analysis, our discus-
sion of the Miller factors unsurprisingly weighs SEARCH & SEIZURE, cell phone search, good
heavily in our Bazan analysis. First, we consider faith exception to suppression of evidence.
whether the Government offered any compensa-
tion to Patel to open the door. The district court State troopers arrested Brian Morton after finding
found that it did not, and no record evidence indi- drugs in his car during a traffic stop. Morton also
cates otherwise. Second, we consider whether the had three cellphones in the car. A state judge later
Government or the private party initiated the idea signed warrants authorizing searches of the
of conducting a search. This analysis tracks close- phones for evidence of drug crime. The warrants
ly to the first Miller factor. As discussed, the allowed law enforcement to look at photos on the
record supports the district court’s finding that phones. When doing so, troopers discovered pho-
there was no insinuation from the Government tos that appeared to be child pornography. This
that Patel open the door. Third, we consider discovery led to a second set of search warrants.
whether the Government lacked specific knowl- The ensuing forensic examination of the phones
edge that the informant intended a search. The dis- revealed almost 20,000 images of child pornogra-
trict court credited testimony from agents assert- phy. This federal prosecution for receipt of child
ing no prior knowledge of Patel’s opening the pornography followed.

30 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal