Knepp v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Kane v. State

    458 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. App. 2015)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when person takes possession of property with the intent to turn it over to law enforcement, the conduct is not criminal and does not warrant exclusion under article 38.23

    c. AnalysisWe find the Dallas Court of Appeals' analysis in Knepp v. State, No. 05–08–00002–CR, 2009 WL 638249, at *3 (Tex.App.–Dallas Mar. 13, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), instructive. Knepp used his personal laptop for work purposes.

  2. Miller v. State

    335 S.W.3d 847 (Tex. App. 2011)   Cited 22 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the defendant lacked a subjective expectation of privacy because he "left the thumb drive unattended, unidentified, and unsecured in an area open to his co-workers and other individuals"

    Moreover, even if the issue had been preserved, the record would support a finding by the district court that Miller, by leaving his thumb drive in an area accessible to all of his co-workers, and by allowing them to put the drive in his box if it was found, gave effective consent for his co-workers to access the drive in order to identify whether the drive belonged to him. See Knepp v. State, No. 05-08-00002-CR, 2009 WL 638249, at *4, 2009 Tex.App. LEXIS 1765, *9 (Tex.App.-Dallas Mar. 13, 2009, no pet.) (not designated for publication) ("By leaving his computer open and unsecured, appellant knew he was leaving it for his coworkers to access. Under these circumstances, the trial court could reasonably conclude that [a co-worker] had appellant's effective consent to access the computer.").