TX12: Texas livestock officer lacked general law enforcement powers

A special ranger employed by the Texas & Southwest Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) recognized as part of the Texas DPS held himself out to be a law enforcement officer. Special rangers are limited to livestock and limited offenses. Instead, he was investigating pictures sent to a minor. He was [way] outside his limited authority and it’s suppressed. The Texas exclusionary rule protects against pretend officers, too. State v. Coleman, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 7788 (Tex. App. – Tyler Oct. 31, 2024).

The factual issues involving whether defendant’s arrest remain unsettled for an ineffective assistance claim, so the court will conduct a hearing on that. United States v. Jenkins, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198122 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 31, 2024).*

Defendant’s cell phone (if it was his) was in the custody of the government for over two years. He refused to provide the passcode. He doesn’t expressly claim the phone is his. He seeks access to the phone to look at it and then would re-lock it and give it back. There’s no authority for this. United States v. Gray, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198035 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2024).*

Defendant seeks to segregate the facts to show a lack of reasonable suspicion, but that’s not how it works. It’s the totality. United States v. Rivera, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198181 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.