Divorce Decree as a Privacy Killer: Thirteenth Court Rules Property Awards Strip Spouses of Standing to Challenge Searches
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West, 13-24-00168-CR, January 29, 2026.
On appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County.
Synopsis
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a capital murder conviction, holding that the warrantless use of city-wide traffic surveillance and the acquisition of rental car GPS data under exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Most significantly for family law practitioners, the court determined that a defendant lacks standing to challenge the seizure of a vehicle when that vehicle has been awarded to the other spouse in a divorce decree, effectively terminating the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
Relevance to Family Law
While Ford v. State is a criminal capital murder appeal, its holding regarding “standing” is a powerful tool for family law litigators dealing with post-decree enforcement and high-conflict custody matters. The court clarifies that a final divorce decree is not merely a distribution of assets; it is a constitutional boundary-setter. Once a decree awards a specific piece of property (like a vehicle) to a spouse, the other spouse’s Fourth Amendment “reasonable expectation of privacy” in that property is extinguished—even if the title has not yet been formally transferred or the vehicle is still registered in the non-possessory spouse’s name. This allows for the “weaponization” of the decree in subsequent civil or criminal discovery and search-and-seizure scenarios.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Richard Ford was charged with the capital murder of his ex-wife, Melissa Banda. Surveillance footage from Banda’s residence showed Ford forcefully abducting her in a white Dodge Journey rental car. The McAllen Police Department utilized the “Milestone” system—a city-operated network of traffic cameras—to identify the rental’s license plate and track its movements throughout the city. After identifying the vehicle as an Avis rental, officers obtained the vehicle’s real-time GPS coordinates from the rental company without a warrant, citing the exigency of an active kidnapping. Ford was apprehended on South Padre Island, and the victim’s body was later found in a rural location identified via the vehicle’s historical GPS data. Separately, police seized a Ford F-150 registered to Ford, but which had been awarded to Banda in their recent divorce decree. Ford moved to suppress the Milestone data, the GPS data, and the evidence from the F-150.
Issues Decided
The court addressed three primary Fourth Amendment issues: (1) whether city-wide traffic surveillance constitutes a “search” requiring a warrant; (2) whether the warrantless acquisition of GPS data from a third-party rental company is permissible during an active kidnapping; and (3) whether a party has standing to challenge the seizure of a vehicle that was awarded to their ex-spouse in a divorce decree. Additionally, the court reviewed whether Ford was entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of kidnapping.
Rules Applied
The court applied the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, noting that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. It distinguished Carpenter v. United States by clarifying that short-term tracking on public roads via traffic cameras does not equate to the “all-encompassing” surveillance of cell-site location information. Regarding standing, the court looked to Texas property law and the finality of divorce decrees to determine possessory interest. The “automobile exception” and “exigent circumstances” exception were also applied to justify the warrantless searches.
Application
The legal narrative centered on the lack of a privacy interest in public movements. The court reasoned that because license plates are required to be visible and traffic cameras monitor public thoroughfares, Ford could not claim a privacy violation regarding the Milestone system. When addressing the GPS data from Avis, the court found the “exigent circumstances” exception was met because the police were in a race against time to find a kidnapping victim. The most compelling application of law involved the Ford F-150. Although the truck was registered to Ford, the court looked to the divorce decree. Because the decree awarded the truck to Banda, Ford no longer had a “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the vehicle. Consequently, he lacked the legal standing to even bring a motion to suppress regarding that vehicle.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the use of city-operated surveillance cameras to track a vehicle on public roads is not a search under the Fourth Amendment because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate exposed to the public.
The court further held that the warrantless acquisition of GPS data from a rental car company was justified by exigent circumstances, as the police were engaged in an immediate search for a missing person believed to be in imminent danger.
Finally, the court held that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of his personal vehicle because the underlying divorce decree had awarded the vehicle to his ex-wife, thereby stripping him of any possessory or privacy interest in the property. The conviction was affirmed.
Practical Application
This case provides a strategic advantage in post-decree litigation. When a client is being stalked or harassed by an ex-spouse, the decree serves as a shield that removes the harasser’s constitutional protections over property they might still “technically” possess or have registered in their name. Litigators should ensure that decrees are drafted with extreme specificity regarding VINs and immediate transfer of possessory rights to trigger this loss of standing for the other party as soon as the judge signs the order.
Checklists
Post-Decree Standing Protection
- Ensure the Final Decree of Divorce contains a specific “Divestiture of Right, Title, and Interest” clause for all vehicles.
- Include the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and license plate number in the decree.
- Clearly state that the non-awarded spouse is “permanently enjoined” from entering or operating the vehicle.
- Advise clients to keep a certified copy of the decree in the vehicle to provide to law enforcement to establish immediate ownership and the other party’s lack of standing.
Challenging a Search (Non-Prevailing Party Perspective)
- Verify if the “standing” was actually lost; check if the decree was stayed or if a motion for new trial was pending.
- Determine if the “privacy interest” was maintained through a permissive use agreement post-divorce.
- Analyze whether the seizure occurred before or after the ministerial act of signing the decree.
Citation
Ford v. State, No. 13-24-00168-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling can be weaponized in Texas divorce or custody cases by providing a “backdoor” for the discovery of evidence. If an ex-spouse is using a vehicle awarded to your client to engage in illicit activity or to violate custody orders, your client can consent to a search of that vehicle by law enforcement or private investigators. Under Ford, the ex-spouse cannot suppress the evidence found because the decree stripped them of standing. Essentially, the “Property Award” section of a divorce decree acts as a waiver of the other party’s Fourth Amendment rights regarding those specific assets. This is a critical point to raise when one party refuses to turn over a vehicle or uses it to hide assets/evidence.
~~7e72813e-4c6f-4449-afea-7eb608f7c8d7~~
Share this content:
