Page 35 - TPA Journal March April 2025

Even though search warrants authorized every- cause existed for the searches and signed the three
thing law enforcement did when searching the cell warrants. Each warrant allowed troopers to search
phones, Morton argues the evidence discovered for various items on the phones including “pho-
during those searches should be suppressed. We tographs, digital images, or multimedia files in
disagree because law enforcement is usually enti- furtherance of narcotics trafficking or
tled to rely on warrants, and none of the possession.”
exceptions that undermine good-faith reliance on While searching the phones, Blue and a
a judge’s authorization applies. Department of Public Safety agent saw images
Shortly after midnight, state trooper Burt Blue they believed were child pornography. They
pulled over Morton’s van on Interstate 20 about stopped searching and sought new warrants seek-
fifty miles west of Fort Worth. After approaching ing evidence of child pornography.
the driver’s side door, Blue smelled marijuana. The same state district judge issued the new war-
Morton eventually admitted he had marijuana in rants. The forensic search of the phones that fol-
the van. Blue then searched Morton and found an lowed located 19,270 images of child pornogra-
Advil bottle in his right pocket. The bottle con- phy on the three phones.
tained several different colored pills A federal grand jury charged Morton with receipt
that Morton admitted were ecstasy. Morton was of child pornography. Morton moved to suppress
arrested. the pornographic images found on the phones. He
Blue and another trooper searched the van. Inside argued that probable cause did not support the ini-
a plastic container wrapped in tape they discov- tial warrants allowing the phone searches. The
ered two plastic bags, one of which contained a good-faith doctrine did not apply, he continued,
small amount of marijuana. They also found a because the affidavits were too “general in nature”
glass pipe with marijuana. In addition to the drug to tie the phones to drug activity. He also briefly
evidence, the troopers discovered approximately contended that the search of the phone for drug
100 pairs of women’s underwear, a number of sex evidence was pretextual because the troopers were
toys, and lubricant. A backpack really concerned that Morton might have commit-
with children’s school supplies was also inside the ted sex crimes.
van. A lollipop was inside a cupholder. Based on The district court refused to suppress the evidence.
what they found in the van, the troopers were con- It concluded that the good-faith exception to the
cerned Morton was a sexual predator. suppression rule applied.
The troopers also seized three cellphones during After losing his suppression motion, Morton
the search of the van. A few days after Morton’s entered a conditional guilty plea that allowed him
arrest, Blue applied for search warrants for the to challenge the searches on appeal.
three phones. The search warrants sought evi- Morton’s appeal initially succeeded. A panel of
dence of drug possession and dealing. our court concluded that, although the “affidavits
In the affidavits he submitted in support of the successfully establish probable cause to search
warrants, Blue recounted the traffic stop and the Morton’s contacts, call logs, and text messages for
drug evidence discovered in the van and on evidence of drug possession,” they do not estab-
Morton. He also explained why, based on his lish probable cause “that the photographs on
experience, he believed it likely that the cell- Morton’s phones would contain evidence perti-
phones contained evidence of illegal drug activity. nent to [that] crime,” The panel also held that the
People often communicate via cellphone to good-faith exception did not apply because rea-
arrange drug transactions. And “criminals often sonable officers should “have been aware that
take photographs of co-conspirators as well as searching the digital images on Morton’s phone—
illicit drugs and currency derived from the sale of allegedly for drug-trafficking-related evidence—
illicit drugs.” was unsupported by probable cause.” Our full
A state district judge concluded that probable court vacated that decision and agreed to hear this

Mar-Apr 2025 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 31