NE: Time limited call and CSLI records were particular

The misstatements in the affidavit for the warrant here was negligence at worst, and that bars suppression. The affidavit for the warrant for defendant’s phone provided at least a “modicum” of information supporting probable cause. So, even assuming a lack of probable cause, the good faith exception saves the search of the phone. The warrant for the call records and CSLI was time limited and reasonable. State v. Short, 310 Neb. 81 (Sept. 17, 2021). The case has a much longer and cogent discussion of cell phone records particularity:

The affidavits contained a modicum of evidence between the criminal activity at issue and the places to be searched, and the knowledge of law enforcement outside the four corners of the affidavits provided a sufficient basis for the likelihood that evidence of the criminal activity would be found in the particular places searched. The law in Nebraska and elsewhere concerning the minimum allegations to support a search of a cell phone, call records, or location information is fact specific, and we have not addressed similar affidavits. Accordingly, while we assume law enforcement has reasonable knowledge of the law, the law was not sufficiently clear with respect to the affidavits at issue for us to conclude law enforcement was entirely unreasonable in its belief they were sufficient.

Assuming without deciding the warrants to search Short’s cell phones, call records, and cell site location information were not supported by a substantial basis for their issuance, we find the police relied in good faith upon the warrants when executing the searches. Accordingly, the district court did not err in overruling Short’s objections based on alleged deficiencies in the warrants’ supporting affidavits.

. . .

Neither warrant at issue here contained the catchall phrase we found unconstitutional in Henderson. The 2018 warrant for the call records and cell site location information specified the crime of homicide and a limited time period of July 8 to August 10, 2015. The warrant to search the physical cell phones limited the search to evidence relating to the homicide of Johnson. While both warrants might be viewed as extensive, they did not lack in particularity. The authorization to “examine every file and scan its contents briefly to determine whether it falls within the scope of the warrant” does not negate that particularity. The district court did not err in determining the warrants satisfied the particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment.