- that the evidence in his case should have been suppressed and
- that he should not have been charged fees for the lawyer appointed for him as a indigent.
- didn't have a possessory interest in,
- didn't have a right to be in,
- didn't control and have the right to keep other people out of,
- didn't take any normal precautions to protect his privacy,
- didn't put to any private use, and
- didn't have a claim of privacy consistent with historical notions of privacy.
The second claim seemed a little harder. Ramirez filed an affidavit of indigency-- a pauper's oath-- at trial. There never was a finding that he his status changed. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 25.06(g) says that attorneys' fees may only be charged to a person who has some capacity to pay, which is not Ramirez.
Justice Marialyn Barnard, writing for a panel that also included Chief Justice Catherine Stone and Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, affirmed the trial court's judgment after modifying by getting rid of the attorneys' fee judgment.