The search warrant application didn’t show a nexus between the phone and the crime under investigation. State v. Reese, 2019 Del. Super. LEXIS 140 (Mar. 18, 2019):
The Court finds that the facts here are similar to Buckham and distinguishable from Anderson and Taylor. Therefore, Buckham controls this case and the search warrant for Reese’s cellular phone is overbroad and insufficiently particular. The Superior Court’s decision in Taylor pre-dates the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckham. Anderson involved Racketeering and seven cellular phones. Unlike the affidavit in Anderson, the instant affidavit does not mention the use of a cellular phone in connection with the crime. Here, no facts are asserted that Reese communicated with alleged criminals via cellular phones or that cellular phones were used as part of a criminal scheme. Finally, the search warrant authorization in Anderson, where there was a nexus between the cellular phones and the crimes, has a more precise search authorization. The instant search warrant is a top-to-bottom search warrant and far exceeds the probable cause supporting the search warrant. There is probable cause to establish: that Reese used Ferguson’s car on several occasions as a getaway car, that he was present for the January 20, 2017 shooting, Reese and White know each other and abandoned Ferguson’s car, and Reese did not like Young or Young’s cousin and they communicated via social media and Ferguson’s cellular phone. The probable cause, however, does not extend to Reese’s cellular phone.