Judge Boyd denies suppression of cellphone extraction in State v. McIntyre; orders prosecutors to identify 2017 phone records

SAN ANTONIO — Judge Stephanie Boyd of the 187th District Court on Wednesday denied a defense motion to suppress the forensic extraction of data from a cellphone seized from a 2013 black Kia Forte and declined to grant a Franks hearing, but ordered prosecutors to show the defense which items from a prior 2017 phone extraction they intend to use at trial.

The ruling came during a hearing on multiple pretrial motions in State of Texas v. Tamor McIntyre, a capital-murder prosecution stemming from the April 2017 killing of Mark Anthony Saldivar. Defense attorneys argued the affidavit supporting the April 24, 2017 search warrant lacked the particularized nexus required by the U.S. Supreme Court in Riley v. California and by recent Texas authorities; prosecutors said the affidavit supplied probable cause under the totality of the circumstances.

Judge Boyd said she had reviewed the affidavit "within the four corners" and concluded it supplied probable cause to seize and extract data from the device. "Defense's motion is denied. Let's move on to your next motion," the judge told counsel after hearing extended argument.

Defense attorney Jerry Goldstein told the court the warrant application used boilerplate language rather than establishing a specific link between the phone seized in the glove compartment of the Kia and evidence of the offense. "This is a boilerplate warrant," Goldstein said, arguing the affidavit failed to show why contents of that particular phone were likely to contain evidence tied to the killing.

Prosecutors responded that the affidavit showed the victim had exchanged extensive communications shortly before the killing with a phone number later linked through databases to Joanna Marie Reyes, and that witnesses and surveillance tied a black 2013 Kia Forte to the incident. "Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant exists under a totality of the circumstances," the prosecutor said, citing corroborating call-history review and vehicle identification in the affidavit.

The defense also sought a Franks hearing (an evidentiary hearing to test allegations that a warrant affidavit contains intentionally false statements or reckless omissions). Judge Boyd denied that request as well, saying the defense had presented "conclusory statements" and that disputes over investigative conduct should be pursued at trial or on cross-examination unless the defense meets the Franks standard.

Separately, the parties aired a discovery dispute over the form and timing of cellphone data turned over to the defense. Defense counsel said the prosecution had previously provided a PDF-format extraction of the device years earlier (following the 2017 extraction) and more recently produced a logical/raw extraction that the defense's expert, Eric Devlin, needs time to analyze. The defense described the new production as thousands of pages that are "time consuming" to review and said Devlin estimated he would need additional weeks to render the material usable for defense preparation.

The state told the court it would not rely at trial on material beyond what was contained in the 2017 extraction unless it expressly notified the defense. Judge Boyd instructed prosecutors to identify, at a short recess, the specific items from the 2017 dump they intend to use; the court set a further in-court check-in for 1:20 p.m., with jurors due to return at 1:30 p.m.

The underlying factual summary reflected in the warrant affidavit, as described in court, states officers recovered a blue iPhone with a cracked screen inside the glove compartment of an impounded 2013 black Kia Forte; earlier investigative steps had shown the victim communicated during a roughly two-hour window on April 23, 2017, with a phone number later associated with Joanna Marie Reyes (area code 210, number ending 8356). The defense stipulated, for purposes of the hearing, that the phone that was seized is the defendant's phone (a tactical stipulation under Simmons for the limited purpose of the motion hearing), but continued to press that a magistrate lacked the particularized probable cause required to authorize a forensic extraction of the phone's contents.

Judge Boyd denied an additional defense request to allow the defense to copy and remove NCIC/TCIC records provided in discovery; the court ruled those criminal-history records must remain under the court's control and not be taken out of the courtroom for privacy and statutory reasons.

The court also discussed several warrant numbers and investigative steps on the record: warrant applications for phone-company records (including a Verizon warrant for the victim's records and a Sprint warrant for the number linked to Reyes), an impound/search of the Kia, and a later forensic-search warrant for the cracked blue iPhone. Defense counsel said the state had issued multiple warrants (cited on the record by number) and argued those materials warranted further inquiry into whether factual assertions in the affidavit were accurate.

Judge Boyd allowed the parties to reconvene after the state shows the defense which items from the 2017 extraction it plans to use; she denied suppression of the forensic extraction and denied the request for a Franks hearing at this stage. The court set further in-court argument after the parties review the specified 2017 materials.

Votes at a glance: No formal legislative votes were taken; the court made the following procedural rulings on the record — denial of the defense motion to suppress the search-extraction affidavit; denial of a Franks evidentiary hearing; ruling that NCIC/TCIC discovery material may not be removed from the courtroom; direction that the state identify the 2017-extraction items it will rely on and a 1:20 p.m. reconvene for argument.

The case remains set for trial; the court addressed scheduling and indicated jury processes would resume later the same day.