Ralph William Gallagher v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-21-00307-CR
NO. 09-21-00308-CR
NO. 09-21-00309-CR
NO. 09-21-00310-CR
_______________
RALPH WILLIAM GALLAGHER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 221st District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 20-07-08653-CR, 20-07-08704-CR, 21-08-10997-CR,
21-08-10998-CR
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Ralph William Gallagher of two counts of indecency with a
child, M.C. 1 The jury also convicted Gallagher of one count of possession of child
1We use initials to refer to the alleged victims, minor children, and
pseudonyms to refer to the child’s family members. See Tex. Const. art. 1, § 30(a)(1)
(granting crime victims “the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the
victim’s dignity and privacy throughout the criminal judicial process”).
1
pornography and one count of sexual performance by a child, both offenses against,
L.C. The indecency with a child indictments each included an enhancement for a
prior out-of-state sexual exploitation of a minor conviction. The jury found the
enhancements true and assessed punishment of life on each indecency with a child
count, life for the sexual performance of a child offense, and ten years for the
possession of child pornography offense. The State moved to cumulate the
sentences, which the trial court granted. In one issue, Gallagher complains the trial
court erred by denying his Motion to Suppress the seizure of his cell phone. As
discussed below, we will affirm the trial court’s judgments.
PERTINENT BACKGROUND
Bonnie Crump and Gallagher began interacting online for their work
reviewing books. In 2014, they met in person at a book convention. Following a
serious injury to her leg which left Bonnie bedridden in 2015, they became friends.
In the summer of 2016, Bonnie and her husband decided they needed help around
the house with their three children, M.C., L.C., and E.C.
Over the next several years, although Gallagher’s primary residence was in
South Carolina, he would stay with the Crump family intermittently to assist with
the children for extended periods. He had a designated bedroom in the Crumps’
home and vacationed and spent holidays with them. Bonnie testified that Gallagher
2
helped with the children and became especially close to L.C., who was on the autism
spectrum and did not have many friends.
In December 2019, their oldest daughter, M.C., outcried to a counselor at
school that Gallagher had been touching her inappropriately. The school
immediately called law enforcement officers. The Crumps met with school officials
and law enforcement officers. Ultimately, through the investigation, law
enforcement learned that Gallagher had also sexually abused L.C.
Investigators seized Gallagher’s cell phone without a warrant and then
searched it after obtaining a search warrant. During the search, officers found
evidence relevant to proving the claims in the four-counts of Gallagher’s indictment.
Police also obtained records and data from Google and Dropbox after obtaining other
search warrants requiring Google and Dropbox to allow police to search files tied to
Gallagher from those services. The Dropbox materials included a naked video of
Gallagher addressing L.C., a photograph of M.C. in her underwear, and other
evidence relevant to proving Gallagher guilty of the offenses of sexual indecency
and sexual performance with a child, L.C. At trial, Gallagher moved to suppress the
seizure and search of his phone, Google records, and Dropbox records. On appeal,
Gallagher raises one issue, challenging the seizure of his phone, arguing it was seized
without a warrant violating the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23 and
the Fourth Amendment.
3
The trial court did not conduct the evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s
motion to suppress until after the trial began. Before the trial court conducted the
suppression hearing outside the jury’s presence, the jury heard Detective Jason
Buckner, an employee of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, testify that on
December 6, 2019, he received a call from Patrol Sergeant Johnson who gave him
“some details” about M.C.’s outcry. According to the detective, Sergeant Johnson
said Gallagher’s primary residence was in South Carolina, which Gallagher
confirmed. Detective Buckner testified that he told Sergeant Johnson that he would
go to the scene immediately to start his investigation since “we had a defendant that
was going to be leaving the state very soon[.]” Detective Buckner added that while
en route to the scene, he spoke with Sergeant Johnson again. Sergeant Johnson then
gave him additional details as to M.C.’s outcry. Detective Buckner explained that
after arriving on the scene, he spoke with Deputy Fry. Deputy Fry, already on the
scene before Detective Buckner arrived, advised Detective Buckner of the “full
outcry from everybody.” Detective Buckner explained that when he “pulled up to
the scene,” he saw Gallagher “appearing very nervous, pacing the driveway, walking
back and forth really fast.”
At that point, the prosecutor approached the bench and advised the trial court
that he was “about to get into the seizure of the phone.” The trial court recessed the
4
trial, allowed the jury to leave the courtroom, and went on to conduct a hearing on
Gallagher’s Motion to Suppress.
Motion to Suppress Hearing
During the suppression hearing, Detective Buckner testified about the seizure
and subsequent search of Gallagher’s phone. Detective Buckner said that he seized
Gallagher’s phone without detaining Gallagher, and without his consent or the
benefit of a search warrant. When Detective Buckner seized the phone, he already
knew Gallagher was a registered sex offender in South Carolina. And Detective
Buckner knew the offense in South Carolina involved “a sexting incident where
electronic devices were used to message and send pictures underage children.”
According to Detective Buckner, when he seized the phone it was his understanding
that M.C.’s account, based on her outcry, involved Gallagher touching her on top of
and under her clothes, the sexual acts involving the two had occurred over a period
of two to three years, and they all had occurred at the Crumps’ home. Buckner
explained that he seized Gallagher’s phone because he knew that 1) Gallagher was
leaving the state, 2) the cell phone contained geolocation data, which could be used
to corroborate M.C.’s outcry based on Gallagher’s location when the incidents
occurred, and 3) he was concerned that the case in South Carolina also involved
Gallagher’s use of electronic communications. Detective Buckner testified that after
5
seizing Gallagher’s phone, he took it to the sheriff’s crime lab division where he
submitted it as evidence.
Detective Buckner told the trial court he was officially assigned to Gallagher’s
case on December 9, 2019. A magistrate issued a search warrant for Gallagher’s
phone on January 13, 2020. The detective explained that between December 6 and
January 13, the Crumps children were interviewed, M.C. underwent a SANE exam,
and detectives interviewed the children’s caregivers and filed search warrants.
Detective Buckner testified that Gallagher never requested that the police return his
phone and that Gallagher “did not even want to touch the cell phone and wanted
nothing to do with the phone.” Detective Buckner explained that before police
obtained the search warrant for the phone, M.C. told the person who interviewed her
that Gallagher took pictures of her that she made him delete, which also led Detective
Buckner to believe his phone might contain evidence of a crime.
During the hearing, copies of the search warrants for the phone, Google
records, and Dropbox records were admitted into evidence. In the Application for
Search Warrant to Access Cellular Telephone, Detective Buckner outlined what he
knew when he seized Gallagher’s phone. In the application, the detective described
M.C.’s outcry to her school counselor where M.C. told her Gallagher had been
touching her genitals and breasts for two to three years. Detective Buckner averred
he relayed that information to Deputy Fry, who was dispatched to the school. In the
6
application, Buckner also swore he arrived at the Crumps’ residence, where
Gallagher was staying, so he could collect evidence and interview Gallagher.
Detective Buckner further asserted he attempted to speak with Gallagher about
M.C.’s allegations to the counselor, but Gallagher advised he wanted to speak to an
attorney. Detective Buckner then stated he seized Gallagher’s phone, which
Gallagher had on his person, “to preserve any possible evidence that may have been
contained on or within it.” Finally, in applying for the search warrant Detective
Buckner swore that he had “reason to collect the phone due to the defendant living
out of state and knowing that cell phones contain geographical evidence and GPS
coordinates that would indicate the defendant was in the location the assaults
occurred as stated by the victim M.C. at the time of the outcry.”
Gallagher argued that the seizure of the cell phone was wrong, and the
evidence police subsequently seized from his phone even though seized with the
benefit of a search warrant was “fruit of the poison tree.” The State argued the cell
phone was in plain view, officers seized it based on their knowledge at the time, and
police had used due diligence to get a warrant to search Gallagher’s phone. The
defense further argued that the information available to police when they seized the
phone did not include information that Gallagher used his cell phone to record M.C.
In addition, Gallagher argued that even though the State claimed Gallagher was a
registered sex offender, the State failed to provide a copy of the judgments of
7
conviction on any offenses in South Carolina, and he claimed the trial court had not
heard any testimony the offenses in South Carolina involved Gallagher’s use of a
phone. Finally, Gallagher argued that neither the Crumps nor Gallagher told police
he was going to South Carolina. In response, the prosecutor argued Detective
Buckner “said Sergeant Johnson told him that.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the
trial court denied Gallagher’s Motion to Suppress.
Trial on the Merits: The Additional Testimony About the Seizure of Gallagher’s
Phone
During the trial on the merits, the defense questioned Detective Buckner about
the circumstances surrounding the seizure of Gallagher’s phone. When he was cross-
examined, Detective Buckner testified that he read Gallagher his Miranda rights and
then seized Gallagher’s phone. According to the detective, he saw the phone in either
Gallagher’s hand or his pocket, and Gallagher gave him the phone when he was
asked. Detective Buckner added that Gallagher identified the phone as his.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Following the trial, the trial court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law. As relevant to the seizure of Gallagher’s phone, the trial court found:
...
2. Former Detective Jason Buckner, formerly of the Montgomery
County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), testified during the suppression
hearing related to the defendant’s cell phone.
3. Buckner’s testimony was credible.
8
4. Buckner had nearly twenty years of experience as a peace officer.
5. On December 6, 2019, Buckner was the on-call detective and
responded to the residence where the defendant was located in
Montgomery County, Texas.
6. Buckner received information from officers who responded to the
school where M.C., a child, was located as well as his supervisor while
en route to, and while on location at the residence where the defendant
was located.
7. Buckner made contact with the defendant, who was in possession of
a cell phone.
8. Buckner had information from the outcry that the defendant touched
the complainant in her private areas over two or three years during
times when he visited the residence.
9. Buckner had information that the defendant’s primary residence was
in South Carolina.
10. Buckner had information that the defendant was a registered sex
offender out of South Carolina and that the offense he was convicted of
involved the use of electronic device(s) in the commission of the
offense.
11. Buckner knew, based on his training and experience, that cellular
devices contain location data information and that the defendant’s cell
phone may contain information about the defendant’s location at the
time of the alleged abuse, which was alleged to have occurred over a
period of years.
12. Buckner testified that the defendant expressed his intent to leave the
state of Texas.
13. Buckner testified that based on his training and experience, he
seized the phone to prevent evidence from being taken out of state and
lost.
14. Buckner testified that M.C., a child, had a forensic interview on
December 10, 2019, which revealed information about the defendant
taking illicit photographs of her during the course of the abuse.
15. Buckner testified that during the month of December he was also
working on other pending investigations in his caseload and took some
days off for the holidays.
16. Buckner testified that the defendant never reached out to Buckner
about his cell phone.
17. Buckner applied for and was granted a warrant to search the
defendant’s cell phone on January 13, 2020, and delivered the cell
phone search warrant to the MCSO Crime Lab for analysis.
9
18. Buckner left his employment with the MCSO and Detective
Burdette Taylor was assigned the case on January 24, 2020.
...
28. Taylor testified that he submitted the defendant’s cell phone to the
Montgomery County Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task
Force for assistance with another attempt to execute the cell phone
search warrant on June 10, 2021.
29. Taylor testified that on July 12, 2021 he reviewed the completed
cell phone extraction report from the ICAC Task Force and identified
numerous images of child sexual abuse or exploitation material / child
pornography of L.C., a child.
The trial court’s conclusions of law pertaining to the cell phone included:
1. Based on Buckner’s training, experience, and the circumstances as
he perceived them, Buckner had probable cause to believe that the
defendant’s cell phone contained evidence at the time he seized the cell
phone from the defendant. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Tex. Const. Art.
I, Sec. 9.
2. The warrantless seizure was reasonable and authorized under article
I, sec. 9. See Tex. Const. Art. I, Sec 9.
3. The time-period between seizure of the defendant’s cell phone on
December 9, 2019 by Detective Buckner and the granting of a search
warrant on January 13, 2020 was not a constitutionally unreasonable
delay.
4. The cell phone data was extracted pursuant to a lawful search warrant
supported by probable cause. See Tex. Const. Art. I, Sec. 9; Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure Art. 18.0215.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review rulings on motions to suppress under a bifurcated standard. Lerma
v. State, 543 S.W.3d 184, 189–90 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018); Dugar v. State, 629
S.W.3d 494, 497 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2021, pet. ref’d). We give almost total
deference to the trial court’s findings of fact and review its application of law to the
facts de novo. See Martin v. State, 620 S.W.3d 749, 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021)
10
(citation omitted). We review de novo whether a specific search or seizure was
reasonable. See Igboji v. State, No. PD-0936-20, 2023 WL 2396388, at *4 (Tex.
Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2023). In a motion to suppress hearing, “the trial judge is the
sole trier of fact and judge of credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to
their testimony.” Lerma, 543 S.W.3d at 190. When, as here, the trial court issues
findings of fact, we review the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
ruling and uphold those findings if the record supports them. See Martin, 620 S.W.3d
at 759 (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 521 S.W.3d 1, 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017)). We
will uphold a trial court’s ruling if correct under any applicable theory of law and
reasonably supported by the record. See id.; State v. Ruiz, 581 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2019).
Generally, we limit our review to the record of the suppression hearing. See
Igboji, 2023 WL 2396388, at *4. However, when the parties relitigate the
suppression issue in the trial, the scope of our review includes the evidence relevant
to the suppression evidence admitted in both the suppression hearing and in the trial.
See Rachal v. State, 917 S.W.2d 799, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
ANALYSIS
In his sole issue, Gallagher asserts that the trial court erred by denying his
Motion to Suppress based on multiple constitutional provisions, but his substantive
briefing and legal authority address only the Fourth Amendment and Texas Code of
11
Criminal Procedure article 38.23(a), so we limit our discussion accordingly. See Tex.
R. App. P. 38.1(i) (setting forth requirements for an appellant’s brief to include
citations to authority and to the record for the arguments made). In support of his
issue, he contends his “cell phone was seized unlawfully in violation of the Fourth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and all evidence obtained or derived therefrom
was obtained unlawfully[,]” and under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article
38.23(a), any evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution should not be
admitted. Finally, he argues that the State’s evidence does not establish exigent
circumstances.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. CONST. amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment’s purpose is to safeguard a person’s
legitimate expectation of privacy from unreasonable government intrusions.
Villareal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (citation omitted).
“A warrantless search or seizure is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment
unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” Igboji,
2023 WL 2396388, at *4 (citations omitted).
12
The existence of exigent circumstances is one such exception. Igboji, 2023
WL 2396388, at *4. This “exception applies when ‘the exigencies of the situation
make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is
objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’” Id. (quoting Kentucky v.
King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011)). This exception permits law enforcement to handle
situations that compel the “need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.”
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 149 (2013); Igboji, 2023 WL 2396388, at *4.
Once a defendant shows that a warrantless search or seizure has occurred, the
burden shifts to the State to prove an exception to the warrant requirement applies.
Igboji, 2023 WL 2396388, at *5. Generally, the State must satisfy a two-step process
to validate a warrantless search based on exigent circumstances; a warrantless
seizure can be justified by showing 1) first, the existence of probable cause and 2)
second, an exigency. See id. 2 With respect to the first step, “probable cause exists
‘when reasonably trustworthy facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the
officer on the scene would lead a man of reasonable prudence to believe that the
2Compare Igboji v. State, No. PD-0936-20, 2023 WL 2396388, at * (Tex.
Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2023), with U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 701–02 (1983)
(recognizing exigent circumstances for seizing a container for a reasonable period
may depend on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause), and Rafiq v. State,
No. 09-20-00094-CR, 2022 WL 3868104, at **9–11 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug.
31, 2022, pet. filed) (same); see also Corbin v. State, 85 S.W.3d 272, 276 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2002) (“A seizure based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause will
generally be reasonable.”) (citing Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806, 818 (1996); Terry v.
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21–22 (1968)).
13
instrumentality . . . or evidence of a crime will be found.’” Id. (quoting Estrada v.
State, 154 S.W.3d 604, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)). Probable cause “is not a high
bar[.]” Kaley v. U.S., 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014); Gutierrez v. State, 585 S.W.3d 599,
609 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.). Second, an exigency requiring
an immediate action by law enforcement must exist. Igboji, 2023 WL 2396388, at
*5. Three recognized categories of exigent circumstances that justify a warrantless
intrusion by law enforcement are: (1) giving aid or assistance to persons whom law
enforcement reasonably believes need assistance; (2) protecting police officers from
persons whom they reasonably believe are present, armed, and dangerous; and (3)
preventing destruction of contraband or evidence. Id. Here, we are concerned with
the third category of exigency.
To determine whether exigent circumstances exist, courts look to the totality
of the circumstances when the seizure occurred. See id. at *4; see also Lange v.
California, 141 S.Ct. 2011, 2018, 210 L.Ed.2d 486 (2021); Cole v. State, 490 S.W.3d
918, 923 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). The record must show facts suggesting an
imminent destruction of evidence, not necessarily affirmative conduct on the
suspect’s part. Igboji, 2023 WL 2396388, at *6. This may be shown where a suspect
controls easily disposable evidence. See, e.g., Gutierrez, 585 S.W.3d at 610
(explaining State showed exigent circumstances for seizing cell phone since
appellant had control over easily disposable evidence); Orosco v. State, No. 03-15-
14
00383-CR, 2017 WL 2873352, at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin June 29, 2017, pet. ref’d)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (upholding seizure of cell phone where
the police had information defendant recorded sexual assault and noting the police
could reasonably have believed that temporarily seizing the cell phone was
necessary to obtain a warrant and the delay might result in destruction of evidence
if the phone was returned).
It is undisputed that Detective Buckner seized Gallagher’s cell phone without
a warrant. We must decide whether the cell phone was illegally seized rather than
illegally searched, as the record shows the cell phone was not searched until a
magistrate issued a search warrant and the validity of the warrant hasn’t been
challenged in the appeal. See Segura v. U.S., 468 U.S. 796, 806 (1984) (citations
omitted) (recognizing different interests implicated by a seizure versus search).
Probable Cause
We first turn to whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that
probable cause supported Detective Buckner’s seizure of Gallagher’s phone. See
Igboji, 2023 WL 2396388, at *5 (explaining that first step in establishing exigent
circumstances exception is to show probable cause existed). First, the evidence
allowed the trial court to find that Detective Buckner seized Gallagher’s phone since
the trial court could had the discretion to believe Detective Buckner that Gallagher
told the detective the phone was his. When the detective seized the phone, the trial
15
court could have also reasonably found that, based on information Detective
Buckner obtained from Sergeant Johnson and Deputy Fry, that (1) M.C. told her
school counselor that Gallagher had assaulted her over a period of years in the
Crumps’ home, (2) Gallagher was a registered sex offender in South Carolina for an
offense involving electronic communications with minors, and (3) Gallagher resided
in South Carolina and would soon be leaving the state of Texas to go home. The trial
court also heard testimony and could have reasonably believed Detective Buckner’s
testimony that there would be evidence on Gallagher’s phone of crimes relevant to
the indictment, evidence including geolocation data that could be used to place
Gallagher on the scene where the crimes alleged in the indictment occurred. Given
Detective Buckner’s testimony, the trial court could reasonably have found that
Detective Buckner, as a man of reasonable prudence, would have believed that
evidence of crimes would be found on Gallagher’s phone. See id.; Estrada, 154
S.W.3d at 609. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in finding that probable cause existed when Detective Buckner seized Gallagher’s
phone. Igboji, 2023 WL 2396388, at *5; Estrada, 154 S.W.3d at 609.
Exigency: Preservation of Evidence
Turning to the second step of the exigency exception, we must determine
whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that it was immediately
necessary for Detective Buckner to seize Gallagher’s phone to preserve the evidence
16
the detective reasonably believed he would find after obtaining a search warrant
authorizing the police to search Gallagher’s phone. See Igboji, 2023 WL 2396388,
at *5. Detective Buckner testified that when he pulled up to the scene, he saw
Gallagher pacing back and forth in the driveway and behaving nervously after seeing
there were officers at the house. Detective Buckner also testified he was concerned
about Gallagher leaving the state since he lived in South Carolina. Detective
Buckner would have known that evidence on a cell phone could be easily erased or
destroyed, so should police leave the scene without Gallaher’s phone, they might not
have another chance to preserve what it had on it that would be relevant to tying
Gallagher to any sexual offenses involving M.C. Detective Buckner testified he
seized Gallagher’s phone to preserve the evidence on it. Examining the totality of
the circumstances when the seizure occurred, the record allowed the trial court to
find there was an imminent risk the evidence on Gallagher’s phone would be
destroyed had the phone not been seized by police. See id. at *4, 6; Gutierrez, 585
S.W.3d at 610 (discussing exigent circumstances where suspect had control over
easily disposable evidence).
In addition, when determining whether a warrantless seizure was reasonable,
we usually balance the privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns. But
here, Gallagher has not complained about the time between when the police seized
his phone and when they obtained a search warrant. See Illinois v. McArthur, 531
17
U.S. 326, 331 (2001). That said, a seizure that is reasonable at its inception may
become unreasonable due to its duration or for other reasons. Segura v. United
States, 468 U.S. 796, 812 (1984). Whether a defendant presents evidence that he
sought return of the evidence or that being deprived of the evidence adversely
affected him is something courts may consider when determining whether the delay
in obtaining a warrant after the seizure was unreasonable. See, e.g., King v. State,
No. 03-17-00276-CR, 2018 WL 5728765, at *9 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 2, 2018,
pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (upholding warrantless seizure
of phone where there was over a sixth-month delay in obtaining first warrant and
two-year delay in obtaining a second warrant where defendant was in jail almost the
entire time phone was seized and failed to present evidence showing he sought return
of the phone, or that being without the phone adversely affected him); see also
United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 487 (1985) (noting that where defendants never
sought return of property, it weighed against a finding that delay in the search
adversely affected legitimate Fourth Amendment interests). Another consideration
is whether police have probable cause to believe property contained evidence of
unlawful conduct. See McArthur, 531 U.S. at 331–32 (concluding search was
reasonable where, among other reasons, police had probable cause to believe
property contained evidence of unlawful drugs).
18
During the suppression hearing, Detective Buckner explained what occurred
between the phone’s seizure and when police obtained a warrant. Among other
things, M.C. saw a SANE, forensic interviews of the children occurred, detectives
interviewed the children’s caregivers, and police filed and obtained search warrants.
Detective Buckner testified that Gallagher never asked for his phone to be returned
or introduced evidence of how the lack of his phone caused any adverse impact. See
King, 2018 WL 5728765, at *9. Balancing the privacy-related and law enforcement-
related concerns, we conclude the length of the seizure before police obtained a
warrant was not unreasonable since: 1) law enforcement had probable cause to
believe the phone contained evidence that Gallagher had committed a crime; 2) in
the month police had Gallagher’s phone before they obtained a search warrant, they
were actively conducting an investigation into the offenses at issue in the appeal;
and 3) Gallagher didn’t ask police or a court to require police to return the phone or
show how the lack of the phone caused any harm. See McArthur, 531 U.S. at 331–
32; Johns, 469 U.S. at 487; King, 2018 WL 5728765, at *9.
Having determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that Detective Buckner had probable cause and needed to prevent the imminent
destruction of evidence on the phone, we conclude the trial court did not err in
denying Gallagher’s Motion to Suppress. We overrule Gallagher’s sole issue.
19
CONCLUSION
Having overruled Gallagher’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s
judgments.
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
W. SCOTT GOLEMON
Chief Justice
Submitted on March 15, 2023
Opinion Delivered April 26, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.
20