Andrew Abel Gonzalez, a school resource officer with the Corpus Christi Independent School District, was charged with “three counts of official oppression” after allegations that he conducted unlawful student searches and planted evidence. The charges arose from a March 7, 2023, incident at a middle school, where Gonzalez and a vice principal cleared a classroom to search for a suspected vape pen. A student left a cellphone recording in the room, capturing a conversation in which Gonzalez discussed placing the contraband in a particular student’s backpack without identifying its true owner.
Gonzalez moved to suppress the recording, arguing that it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Texas wiretap statute because neither he nor the vice principal consented to being recorded. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. The State appealed.
The Texas Court of Appeals reversed. The Court first rejected the Fourth Amendment argument, explaining that the recording was made by a private student acting in a private capacity. Because the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private actors, and there was no evidence the student was acting on behalf of law enforcement, the recording did not implicate constitutional protections.
The Court then addressed the Texas wiretap statute, which prohibits interception of “oral communications.” That definition incorporates the Fourth Amendment’s expectation-of-privacy standard, requiring both a subjective expectation of privacy and one that society is prepared to recognize as objectively reasonable.
The Court acknowledged that Gonzalez exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy. He and the vice principal cleared the classroom and spoke in a manner suggesting they did not want to be overheard. But the Court held that this expectation was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Applying the established multi-factor analysis, the Court emphasized that Gonzalez had no possessory interest in the classroom, was performing official duties in a public school during normal hours, and did not put the space to private use. Although he had authority to clear the room, the classroom remained a public, work-related environment open to others, and he took no meaningful steps to ensure privacy beyond removing students. The Court also stressed that law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity have diminished expectations of privacy, particularly when conducting searches in public spaces.
The Court further explained that recognizing a privacy interest in this context would be inconsistent with “historical notions of privacy,” especially where the officer was performing a public function and exercising state authority. Because Gonzalez lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, the conversation was not an “oral communication” under the statute, and the recording was not unlawfully obtained.
Having rejected both the constitutional and statutory bases for suppression, the Court held that the trial court erred in excluding the recording. It reversed the suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
State v. Gonzalez, No. 13-25-00309- CR, 2026 WL 59717 (Tex. App. Jan. 8, 2026).