TX13: Student’s surreptitious recording of school resource officer planning to plant evidence violated no REP

Defendant was a school resource officer who wanted to search a class room for a vape. The students were all ordered out of the class. One left her phone on record and captured the officer finding the vape and then discussing with the school official he was with about planting it in a potentially innocent person’s backpack. He got arrested for that. He claimed that the recording violated the state wiretap statute and the private search provision of Texas law. The court finds that the officer had no reasonable expectation of privacy in what he was doing. It wasn’t his room, someone else was present, and, among other things, he was performing his law enforcement function for a public purpose. The suppression order is reversed. State v. Gonzalez, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 129 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi-Edinburg Jan. 8, 2026):

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has previously examined the interplay between Article 38.23 and the Fourth Amendment. Importantly, the Court held “reading Article 38.23 to apply the Fourth Amendment to private individuals would lead to an absurdity.” Ruiz, 577 S.W.3d at 546. It is well-settled law that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private wrongdoing and “does not deprive the government of the right to use evidence that it has acquired lawfully.” Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 656 (1980), quoted in Ruiz, 577 S.W.3d at 546. After all, a private person cannot obtain a warrant to comply with the Fourth Amendment. See id. Thus, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals “disavow[ed] the idea that Article 38.23 extends the Fourth Amendment to private citizens acting in a private capacity.” Ruiz, 577 S.W.3d at 547.

Here, the audio recording was made by a student who was a private citizen. There is no allegation that this student was acting on behalf of law enforcement or doing anything other than acting in a private capacity. Accordingly, Gonzalez’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the student, and this is not a proper basis for the trial court’s ruling. See id. The State should not be deprived of this evidence when it obtained it lawfully from the student. See id.

This entry was posted in Private search, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.