With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in fact states in his appellate brief that “the error in admitting the evidence resulted from violating [article] 38.23, rather than from violating a constitution right.” However, appellant also argues that he had "an expectation that knowledge of the existence of the images was limited to [Alisha and him],” which arguably implicates the reasonableness of the search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Betts, 397 S.W.3d 198, 203 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013), Even if appellant had raised this issue, we conclude that he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone at the time it was stolen because Alisha had full access to the phone and could share its contents with anyone. See Lown v. State, 172 S.W.3d 753, 759-61 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Betts, 397 S.W.3d at 203 (Tex. Crim.

A: holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable
B: holding that an agents use of filesharing program to access child pornography files on the defendants computer did not constitute an illegal warrantless search because the defendant had made those files accessible to others and thus lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in files
C: holding that society recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy
D: holding that where there is no evidence of shared use or common authority an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files kept on a personally owned computer
A.