W.D.Ky.: Affidavit truly was “bare bones” on nexus, so no GFE

“It generalizes that ‘an individual’ may have information on his or her phone that connects him or her to a crime, co-defendants or victims, rather than specifically connecting Ramirez, the crime with which he was charged, or any known information about communications made using this particular phone. [¶] A criminal charge is a conclusion drawn by law enforcement based on information gathered that leads them to believe that a particular person is guilty of a particular crime. That cell phones contain evidence that may connect individuals to a crime is also a conclusion. An affidavit that contains only suspicions, beliefs or conclusions, without providing some underlying factual circumstances, has come to be known as a “bare bones’ affidavit.” United States v. Ramirez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49012 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 4, 2016), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48719 (W.D.Ky. April 11, 2016).

Probable cause for defendant’s residence was shown by the fact his son was given money to get drugs and he went to defendant’s home to get it. State v. Layman, 2016-Ohio-1503. 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 1412 (4th Dist. March 31, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Nexus, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.