DC: Affidavit for SW for cell phone showed no PC or nexus to crime

The search warrant for defendant’s phone showed nothing about probable cause to believe any evidence would be on it. The mere fact he likely carried the phone with him all the time isn’t enough. (But the court concedes maybe it’s not that hard to show nexus, but here there wasn’t any.) Gibbs v. United States, 2026 D.C. App. LEXIS 129 (Apr. 23, 2026) (argued Oct. 25, 2022):

We note, however, that it is not so unreasonable to assume that if Mr. Gibbs had a cell phone with him at the time of the attack, it may contain some data relevant to the alleged crime, i.e. locational data. However, a nexus must still be established between evidence sought and the alleged crime committed to justify the search. The affidavit here does not develop even the slightest factual allegations that Mr. Gibbs’s cell phone contains any relevant information. A cell phone is not mentioned until the final paragraph of the affidavit where Detective Greene asserts in conclusory fashion, without referencing the underlying investigation, that information contained within the cell phone has evidentiary value. Without a nexus we cannot then conclude that any locational data on the cell phone is relevant to the alleged crime based solely on the fact that the phone exists.

Explanation from Detective Greene, based on his training, experience, and observations, could have helped bridge that gap between the facts alleged and the reasonable inferences needed to find probable cause to search Mr. Gibbs’s phone. Detective Greene could have discussed how phones are often used in these types of violent assaults or, alternatively, how they are used to coordinate drug deals—because Mr. Jenkins told officers that he and Mr. Gibbs were initially meeting to go buy marijuana—so that it would have at least been reasonable to infer that Mr. Gibbs had a phone with him when he attacked Mr. Jenkins and that it contained relevant information. But Detective Greene did not include any discussion as to why he believed that Mr. Gibbs’s phone contained information of evidentiary value to the case.