In addition to specific facts, officers may state their experience that nexus in a cell phone can be found as to certain crimes, and courts should credit that if reasonable. United States v. Fogg, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38498 (D. Me. Mar. 11, 2019):
In addition to these factual assertions, the affidavit also detailed the officer’s training and experience that, when coupled with the underlying facts of the case, formed the basis of his belief that Fogg and Rios were “involved in the distribution of narcotics” and that “a search of the cellular telephone[s] … would likely produce evidence of associations, drug customers, and drug suppliers.” Id. 7; see also United States v. Rivera, 825 F.3d 59, 66 (1st Cir. 2016) (“[T]he Federal Reporter is teeming with First Circuit opinions … saying that a ‘law enforcement officer’s training and experience may yield insights that support a probable cause determination.”). The officer espoused a view that has been echoed by the Supreme Court: “Cell phones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises, and can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals.” See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 401 (2014). The granting judge accepted this affidavit as providing a “substantial basis … for finding probable cause to issue the warrant” and I defer to his reasonable determination that was clearly supported by the evidence provided to him. Feliz, 20 F. Supp. 2d at 101 (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 236).