was that of Sergeant Crouch, there is not any evidence in the record substantiating Voyles’s claim of privacy. In addition, several factors indicate that Voyles did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to his work computer and the materials stored in it. For example, the computer was owned by the Arlington School District and located at the teacher’s desk in a classroom computer lab. Voyles clearly did not have a property or possessory interest in the school’s computer. Moreover, while it is unclear if Voyles’s computer files were protected by a password, the computer at issue was available for use by substitute teachers. Thus, Voyles lacked complete dominion or control over the unit. See Rogers v. State, 113 S.W.3d 452, 457 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Further, the computer was not placed in the
holding that the fourth amendment was not implicated when an officer asked for passengers identification to see if he could drive a vehicle because the driver had a suspended license holding that an instruction requiring the jury to find that the defendant had the power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the cocaine was adequate to convey the principle that mere presence or proximity is not sufficient holding evidence establishing the intent of the defendants to distribute drugs also permits the inference they intended to exercise dominion over them to demonstrate constructive possession holding defendant who gave personal computers hard drive to technician to repair lacked sufficient dominion or control over the pornographic jpeg files when he asked technician to back them up holding that there was sufficient evidence to prove that a hard drive found in oklahoma was a material that had traveled in interstate or foreign commerce upon proof that the hard drive was manufactured in singapore