E.D.Pa.: Cell phone search suppressed for lack of nexus to alleged crime; everybody has a cell phone

Cell phone search suppressed for lack of nexus. Merely having one isn’t enough. Everybody has one. United States v. Lacosta-Franco, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72244 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 2026):

We often refer to cellphones as smart phones. They are portable mini-computers – ubiquitous in our society. We all rely on them in our daily lives; they have become our primary method of communication replacing landlines, they have replaced personal computers in many households, their navigation tools replaced our paper maps, there is no longer a need for file cabinets as they retain our medical history, banking records, our family photographs, correspondence and often host personal diaries replacing the need to hide a paper journal under the mattress. It has become commonplace for people to have two cellphones, one for work and another personal.

Officers must build a bridge before intruding on a defendant’s Fourth Amendment privacy interests. There is no question that some criminals also use cellphones in furtherance of their crimes. But the ubiquity of cellphones does not, by itself, form the requisite nexus to search the device. See United States v. Williams, No. CR 25-183-GAW-1, 2025 WL 3640894, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2025) (Weilheimer, J.). That nexus needs to be established within the four corners of the warrant. United States v. Stearn, 597 F.3d 540, 549 (3d Cir. 2010). Probable cause does not require direct evidence, but it does require a nexus between the place to be searched and the crimes charged. Stearn, 597 F.3d at 558-559. The fact that a person was arrested and possesses a cellphone, without more, does not build that bridge.

In that vein, upholding a cellphone warrant relying entirely on an officer’s training and experience would mean that any phone recovered from an arrestee is subject to search for any crime imaginable. That unlimited principle without case-specific relation between the phone and the crimes charged, offends Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), and the Fourth Amendment. This Court is unwilling to create a limitless principle for searching cellphones. As there is no nexus created in the subject warrant, Defendant’s Motion to suppress the evidence relevant to the February 4, 2026, warrant is granted.

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.