Text-look case: No privacy for messages sent to third parties, appeals court rules

A Missouri appeals court has ruled for the first time that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to text messages the person sent to third parties.

On Dec. 10, a three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District affirmed the conviction of Ramon D. Boyd for the fatal shooting of Sederick Jones on New Year’s Day 2016 in Kansas City.

According to the opinion written by Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer, prosecutors charged Boyd in 2016 in Jones’ death and the shooting of Jones’ girlfriend, Kierra Ramsey.

Boyd argued at trial he shot Jones in self-defense. In 2018, a jury convicted him on charges of voluntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, two counts of armed criminal action and leaving the scene of a shooting.

A judge sentenced Boyd to a total of 28 years in prison. He appealed his conviction to the Western District.

One argument on appeal was that Jackson County Judge Jalilah Otto, who presided over Boyd’s trial, erred in admitting as evidence text messages Boyd sent that were contained in a cell phone belonging to Destynie Wright, his girlfriend. Wright also was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, two counts of armed criminal action and evidence-tampering in connection with Jones’ death.

Boyd alleged the texts were obtained through an unconstitutional seizure of Wright’s phone.

Pfeiffer said that in order for Boyd to bring a Fourth Amendment violation claim, he first must show he has an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in the place or thing searched, and the expectation of privacy must be reasonable or legitimate.

Boyd argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his text messages stored in Wright’s phone. He pointed to a 2012 Western District case, State v. Clampitt, to bolster that claim.

Pfeiffer said the decision in Clampitt was limited to text messages in the custody of a third-party intermediary and did not address text messages contained in the cell phone of a third-party recipient.

He also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has considered control as an important factor when determining whether a defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place or item searched.

“Whether a person has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her text messages contained in the cell phone of a third-party recipient is an issue of first impression in Missouri,” he said. “However, the general rule is that ‘a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.’”

Pfeiffer said courts across the country have held that the sender of a text message or email has no privacy interest in the contents of the communication once it reaches the recipient.

The panel said it was persuaded in reaching its decision by a Rhode Island Supreme Court case which held that a man did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his texts in his girlfriend’s phone.

The court likewise concluded that Boyd did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in any texts contained in Wright’s phone.

“Ms. Wright’s phone was not one of his personal effects; it was the property of a third party,” Pfeiffer said. “It necessarily follows that, having no reasonable expectation of privacy in Ms. Wright’s phone or the messages contained therein, Mr. Boyd did not have standing to challenge the search and seizure thereof.”

Judges Edward R. Ardini Jr. and Thomas N. Chapman concurred.

Assistant Attorney General Shaun J. Mackelprang, of Jefferson City, represented the state in the case. A spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office declined to comment.

Annette M. Wallace, assistant appellate defender in Kansas City, represented Boyd. She did not respond to a message seeking comment.

The case is State v. Boyd, WD81879.