TX14: Nexus here established by logical inference

The record supported nexus for search warrants for cell phone apparently used to coordinate between two cars that were driving for an hour in a shopping mall parking lot looking for a robbery target. It was logically the only way they were communicating. Granting deference to the warrants, the court finds nexus. Moore v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3250 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) May 13, 2025).

“[W]e affirm the district court’s denial of all three motions. First, because Chatstep and Microsoft were not acting as governmental agents, the Fourth Amendment does not protect Rosenschein from their conduct. Further, even if Chatstep and Microsoft were governmental agents, Rosenschein’s Fourth Amendment claim fails because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in images he uploaded to a reportable internet chatroom with strangers. Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rosenschein’s motion to require production of NCMEC’s reporting system because Rosenschein had the opportunity to access that information through the examination of witnesses.” United States v. Rosenschein, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11383 (10th Cir. May 12, 2025).*

Confiscation of defendant’s cell phone during his trial was not shown to have prejudiced him at trial. Also, the overruling of Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), has nothing to do with this case. United States v. Staples, 2025 DNH 060, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88676 (D.N.H. May 9, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Nexus, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.