Latest Post

The Below Deck Med star should be ashamed as backlash mounts over allegedly feigned poor performance Galeries Lafayette renovates Paris flagship store and expands abroad

CAPE CORAL, Fla. – On Wednesday, Fox 4 Cape Coral community correspondent Colton Chavez investigated why prosecutors claimed they had three cell phones connected to the murder of a Cape Coral teenager, but only one was opened.

On March 17, Cape Coral police said Christopher Horne Jr. and Thomas Stein robbed and killed 15-year-old Kayla Rincon-Miller as she walked from the movie theater to McDonald’s.

On Monday, Shanice Stewart, the mother of Christopher Horne Jr., said Horne’s father had a recording on his phone of Stein’s mother saying her son killed Rincon-Miller. She claims Stein’s mother also admitted to throwing away the gun.

“I gave them the best information they needed for the case,” Stewart said in court on Monday.

Prosecutor Sara Miller told the judge that they were not aware of the existence of this recording because they had only gained access to one of the three phones in custody.

Pamella Seay, a lawyer and professor at Florida Gulf Coast University, spoke with Colton Chavez about why this might be the case.

“Under the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision … you need a search warrant to get that information from a cell phone,” Seay said.

We asked Seay why a search warrant was necessary if investigators had the right to take the phones as evidence.

“It (cell phone) gives a window into a person’s entire life and allows them to testify against themselves over the phone,” Seay explained. “But if they have a search warrant, it has to be narrow. It says: I’m looking at this for a very specific purpose, I’m looking at this to get very specific information, and I’m limited to that.”

The claim made in court by Shanice Stewart prompted Judge Nick Thompson to adjourn the hearing until Monday, July 15, so that both sides could see whether this recorded evidence existed.

Stewart told Judge Thompson that she could give prosecutors the passcode to the phone, but was denied that opportunity because the information would have to come from Horne Sr. since it was his phone.

Chavez asked Seay if there was a loophole in this regard.

“But let’s turn the situation around a little bit,” Seay said. “Let’s say she (Stewart) is the one who has the (phone) account – she’s the one who pays the (phone) bills. The phone is in her name, he uses her phone. Then is it his phone or her phone?”