BEXAR COUNTY, Texas – A former San Antonio police officer accused of bribery and possessing child sex abuse material is asking the Supreme Court to review a ruling that allowed prosecutors to use evidence obtained from his cellphone.
The request would extend a yearslong legal battle that could have broader implications for cellphone privacy and search warrant requirements.
Erik Rodriguez, a former 14-year veteran of the San Antonio Police Department, was arrested in January 2021 and later indicted on charges including bribery and possession of child sex abuse material. He pleaded not guilty.
The latest appeal centers not on Rodriguez’s guilt or innocence, but on whether investigators lawfully obtained evidence from his cellphone.
In 2022, a Bexar County district judge ruled that San Antonio police investigators made critical mistakes when obtaining warrants to seize and search Rodriguez’s cellphone.
The judge, who suppressed the evidence, found that investigators failed to comply with Texas law governing cellphone search warrants.
Prosecutors appealed the ruling. The Fourth Court of Appeals later reversed the decision, which allowed the cellphone evidence to be used in the criminal case.
Rodriguez’s attorneys have now announced they will seek review by the nation’s highest court.
Legal experts said the dispute highlights an issue that extends beyond Rodriguez’s case. Cellphones contain vast amounts of personal information — including text messages, emails, photos and location history.
Making search warrant requirements could be a significant constitutional issue.
“The same legal standards that apply in this case apply to anyone whose cellphone is searched by law enforcement,” defense attorney John Hunter told KSAT.
The Supreme Court accepts only a small percentage of the cases it is asked to review. If the court declines to hear Rodriguez’s appeal, the criminal case would move forward in Bexar County with the cellphone evidence remaining admissible.
If the court agrees to hear the case, the legal fight over the evidence could continue and further delay the proceedings.
The case cannot move toward trial until the pending appeals process is resolved.
More recent coverage of this story on KSAT: