N.D.Iowa: Nexus shown to cell phone in harassing letters case

The ubiquity of cell phones makes them likely sources of evidence in crimes. Here, there was [at least a slim] nexus to the cell phone and iPad being involved in sending harassing letters. United States v. Goodman, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20628 (N.D. Iowa Feb. 2, 2026)*:

We use cell phones constantly. We use them to set alarms, text, play music, watch videos, map driving routes, track workouts, access the Internet, take pictures and videos, play games, and stream movies, in addition to making and receiving phone calls. Because we use cell phones constantly, they are with us constantly. It is reasonable to believe that a person would likely have their cell phone with them, wherever they are, at any given time. Also, the warrant application contained the specific allegation that a laptop and iPhone connected to the wi-fi network at C.M.’s business around the time that harassing letters were printed and left inside the business. That happened after defendant had already been trespassed from all of C.M.’s businesses and had been seen driving by, yelling “fuck you,” and in his vehicle in the area.

Also, contrary to defendant’s claim, the logical place for the cell phone and laptop is inside of defendant’s residence, which is where the warrant requested permission to search. As noted, a person’s cell phone is likely to be wherever the person is, including in their own home. A person’s residence is also the place they would likely store their belongings, but it is even more likely with electronics because electronics need to be charged and their residence is the easiest place to do so. The Court concludes that this information is sufficient to establish a reasonable probability that evidence of the crimes of trespass and harassment would be found and that there is a sufficient nexus to defendant’s residence for both.

Thus, based on the totality of information in the four corners of the third warrant application, the Court concludes, like Judge Roberts, that there was a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be found at defendant’s address and the warrant was supported by probable cause. The Court overrules defendant’s objection on this issue.

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

Comments are closed.