TX: Court of Appeals required state to show more than necessary to show cell phone nexus; remanded

“To the extent that the court of appeals read our opinion in Baldwin necessarily to require, as a prerequisite of probable cause, that an affidavit must establish (1) use of the cell phone either during, or immediately before or after, commission of (2) the specific offense on trial, it was misguided. Such a showing is not always required before a magistrate may find that a search warrant affidavit ‘state[s] facts and circumstances that provide … probable cause to believe that … searching the telephone … is likely to produce evidence in the investigation of’ certain criminal activity. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 18.0215(c)(5)(B). The court of appeals should reexamine its decision.” Stocker v. State, 2024 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 516 (July 31, 2024).

Franks challenge fails: “That said, Oldham’s preliminary showing is insufficient to warrant a Franks hearing. Officer Meier’s statements were not false. Nor is there any evidence that Officer Meier acted with the subjective intent to deceive the issuing judge. And to the extent that Oldham contends that Officer Meier omitted information—such as the weight of the marijuana recovered from the Explorer—he also withheld substantial incriminating information. In large part, it appears that Oldham challenges the wording of the Affidavit. But perfection is not the standard for a search warrant affidavit. Truthfulness and completeness are. When reviewing Oldham’s Offer of Proof, Officer Meier’s narrative was both.” United States v. Oldham, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134198 (N.D. Ind. July 30, 2024).*