Local Defense Lawyer’s Cell Phone Seized After Allegations of Retaliation

Obstruction or Retaliation is defined as intentionally harming or threatening to harm another in retaliation for their service as a public servant, witness, prospective witness, informant, or an individual who is trying to report a crime. It is also a crime to threaten to harm or harm a public servant (law enforcement), witness, prospective witness, etc. in order to delay their service. The legislative purpose of the statute is to protect police officers and other witnesses from legitimate threats and attacks by individuals to keep them from testifying or otherwise doing their job.

Judge Sam Moss signed the warrant for the cell phone, however a stay of execution was put in place by visiting Abilene Judge James Eidson until a hearing at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, March 27th, in Moss’ courtroom at the Brown County Courthouse.

District Attorney Michael Murray and Assistant District Attorney Elisha Bird were present to represent the case in lieu of Brown County Attorney Shane Britton. Aaron Seymour was represented by John Convery, a defense attorney from San Antonio, recognized for his expertise in criminal law, defending clients in federal, state and military courts in Texas.

Allegedly Detective Gover was confronted by Seymour’s wife, Amy, in February at the Brown County Courthouse when the detective attempted to speak to one of Seymour’s legal clients without a lawyer present. Seymour’s client was reportedly a person of interest in an out-of-state investigation, and Detective Gover was asked by that agency to perform a courtesy interview. According to witnesses, Amy told the detective not to speak to the client, which led to a terse exchange of words. Days later, on February 17th, Aaron Seymour texted the detective instructing him not to speak to clients without legal representation present. He also warned the detective not to speak to his wife in a disrespectful manner, threatening physical violence.

On March 7th, Brown County Sheriff’s detectives arrived at Seymour’s law office with a warrant to seize his cellphone. Upon receipt of the warrant, Seymour contacted Defense Attorney John Convery.

That evening, Seymour filed an emergency motion to stay execution and quash (or dismiss) and also to return ‘illegally seized’ property, meaning the cell phone. The motion requested a hearing, and was filed with the 35th District Court. Judge Steve Ellis immediately recused himself, signing a request for a visiting administrative regional judge.

Judge James Eidson with the 42nd District Court was assigned to hear the motion, set on Friday, March 9th at 4:30 p.m. in the 35th District courtroom. District Attorney Michael Murray filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction, ultimately saying the matter should be handled by the judge who signed the warrant, Sam Moss. Defense Attorney John Convery asked for a protective order to seal the phone until the warrant issues were addressed with Judge Moss. Visiting Judge Eidson agreed with the Plea to the Jurisdiction, and also agreed to the protective order to seal the phone. A hearing was scheduled in the Brown County Court of Law with Judge Moss.

During the hearing on March 27th, Defense Attorney Convery argued there were issues with the warrant, citing a lack of specificity as to what law enforcement might be searching for, as well as unreasonable search and seizure, and violation of the attorney/client privilege. Convery also informed the court of the potential First Amendment violations for individual conversations stored in the phone from persons unaware of the seizure.

Addressing the lack of specificity in the warrant, DA Murray explained law enforcement is rarely curtailed into searching one specific location. The DA also explained this instance was similar to officers searching a home for cocaine, and that a warrant wouldn’t confine them to only searching one room.

Defense countered by reminding the court of Constitutional issues at stake, saying “cocaine has no First Amendment rights or attorney/client privileges,” however, people do. A key argument by the defense has been the possibility of a violation of the rights of all the clients Seymour has conversed with using the cell phone and cases that are currently active and being investigated could be tainted by law enforcement obtaining privileged information found within the phone.

Seymour offered to supply the text messages exchanged between himself and the detective. Investigators have still pushed for the entire contents of the phone, explaining they believed there could be additional evidence.

After hearing arguments as to whether or not the warrant was valid, Judge Moss overruled the defense’s objection. Defense then asked for an ‘in-camera’ (or in chambers) inspection of the evidence retrieved from the phone before said evidence is released to law enforcement. With an in-camera inspection, a judge privately looks at confidential, sensitive, or private information to determine what, if any, information may be used by a party. With the in-camera inspection, Defense asked for item-by-item review, with representation present. Defense also noted a potential conflict of interest should Judge Moss review information from the cell phone as it could contain information that pertains to cases currently overseen by Judge Moss.

The judge denied the Defense’s motion to suppress the evidence and their request for item review with representation from their team. The issue of a neutral magistrate request has yet to be addressed, and the defense will likely file a motion.

As Seymour could not be legally ordered to relinquish his passcode for the phone, due to the Fifth Amendment, Judge Moss ordered the phone be sent to an out of district processing facility for data download. The data will be obtained by law enforcement to be delivered to the court and not reviewed until released by Judge Moss.

It is unusual to see a local lawyer at odds with law enforcement to this degree. The last most recent incidence was the case of a Brownwood attorney, 54-year-old Tommy Adams, who was arrested on New Year’s Eve at a Court Appointed Special Advocates fundraiser after allegedly striking his wife in the face.

Adams was arrested and booked into the Brown County Jail and was released on a personal recognizance bond.  He was charged with Assault Causing Bodily Injury Family Violence, a Class A misdemeanor.

In Seymour’s case, he feels he was defending his wife, but now faces a felony charge.

A copy of the search warrant can be viewed here: