Voyles V. the State of Texas Court Case Summary free essay sample

In 2000, the Arlington Police Department received information stating that Earnest Leon Voyles had exchanged emails that contained sexual content with a fifteen year old girl from London, England. According to this informant the fifteen year old girl, â€Å"Amy Chang†, had been solicited for sex by Voyles and had arranged to meet with her in London to engage in a sexual relationship. Sergeant James Crouch of the Arlington Police Department was unsuccessful in contacting â€Å"Amy Chang† to verify the arrangement but was not successful, however, he was successful in verifying that Voyles was working as a teacher at a junior high located in Arlington, Texas. Working with the information provided by the informant, Sergeant Crouch, sent an email to Voyles describing himself as a fifteen year old girl named â€Å"C. J. Best† on December 28, 2000. In this email â€Å"C. J. Best† told Voyless that she was looking for a new chat buddy and that she had gotten his address through some friends and that she lived in Forth Worth, Texas. We will write a custom essay sample on Voyles V. the State of Texas Court Case Summary or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page About two and a half hours later Voyles responded to the email indicating that he was interested in being chat buddies with â€Å"C. J. Best. † On January 19, 2001, after several emails were exchanged between Voyles and â€Å"Best† Sergeant Crouch obtained search warrants for Voyles home and work computers where the Arlington Police Department found and â€Å"seized child pornography off the hard drives of each unit. Voyles was charged and indicted for possession of child pornography which is a third degree felony. In 2002, alleging that the evidence that the Arlington Police Department obtained from both his home and work computers was inadmissible claiming an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I of the Texas Constitution, Voyles filed a motion to suppress. The Fourth Amendment and Article I of the Texas Constitution provides that a defendant has standing to challenge the admission of evidence obtained by an intrusion by the government or a private individual only if he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place invaded. Although the trial court granted Voyles’s motion to suppress all of the evidence from his home computer they denied his motion to suppress the evidence obtained on his work computer; stating that the evidence was admissible because Voyles â€Å"had no reasonable expectation of rivacy in his work computer. † Although Voyles stated that he took precautions to prevent others from accessing or viewing items on his work computer the State argued that he had no expectation of privacy because the computer was owned by the school district, was located in a public classroom that was designed not only for teaching students, but was designed to be available for use by substitute teachers. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has articulated several factors as relevant in determining if the defendant’s subjective expectation is recognized as objectively reasonable, most notably, â€Å"whether he had complete dominion or control and the right to exclude others† from the information on the computer and the use of the computer. As stated earlier, because the computer was owned by the Arlington School District, Voyles clearly did not have complete dominion or control over the computer or the files located on the hard drive of the computer. The court also brought up the fact that the computer was placed in the classroom by the school district for classroom laboratory work related purposes that allowed Voyles to teach his students about computers; not for Voyles’s personal or private use. Considering all of this information Voyles failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding his work computer and the data stored in it. He could not contest the admission of the evidence seized from his work computer or the affidavit executed to support the search warrant that authorized the search of his school computer; a computer that despite not allowing someone else to use or even by placing a password on could still be used by students or substitute teachers through the assistance of the Information Technology Department.

The Smoking Ban in Corpus Christi,TX or issues for the Smoking Ban

The Smoking Ban in Corpus Christi,TX or issues for the Smoking Ban A smoking ban has been passed in Corpus Christi, TX which will begin February 1, 2005. This ban will affect all restaurants that have been allowing smoking in their environment. Many people are against this ban, but because of health risks, the lack of courteousness, and environmental problems, the smoking ban should be enforced.Since the discovery that second hand smoke can be dangerous to others, many people have a problem with being in smoking environments. Second hand smoke can cause serious health problems for people exposed to it, and avoiding it in restaurants is hard to do. Secondhand smoke is serious business and should be a concern for anyone who breathes it in. It is a shame that people can not even go to their favorite places to eat because of this issue. Families with young children are usually most likely concerned about second hand smoke. People should be able to go to any restaurant without having to worry about being exposed to second hand smoke.King Eddie's Restaura nt, 1954Having smoking sections in restaurants is telling people that sit in the non smoking sections that they are free of the second hand smoke, which is not true. Smoke travels throughout the restaurants just as the smell of the restaurants food does. The smoke gets into the vents and is then blown throughout the restaurant. Most people just do not realize it because the smell of their food might overpower the smell of the smoke. It does not mean that the harmful particles and molecules are not in the air because they are, and everyone in these restaurants is breathing in second hand smoke whether they realize it or not. No one should be forced to breathe in air tainted with cigarette smoke. The smoking ban should be enforced so non smokers...