CA8: Cell phone in hands of drug dealer is nexus

Probable cause for a drug dealer’s cell phone is shown because it’s now commonly a “tool of the trade.” United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9643 (8th Cir. April 3, 2026):

He also argues that the affidavit failed to sufficiently draw a nexus between the phone and any criminal activity. The contents of the affidavit show otherwise. The affidavit noted his drug-related criminal history and mentioned that drug users and dealers commonly use their cell phones to further those activities. See id. at 1125 (“If firearms are tools of the drug trade … there is little reason to believe that cell phones are not.” (citation modified)); see also United States v. Smith, 581 F.3d 692, 694 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing defendant’s prior drug conviction in probable cause analysis). As we have previously noted, “[i]t would be unreasonable and impractical to demand that judges evaluating probable cause must turn a blind eye to the virtual certainty that drug dealers use cell phones.” Eggerson, 999 F.3d at 1127. Jones argues that the affidavit used only boilerplate language, but “[w]e will not disturb a court’s finding of probable cause ‘unless there was no substantial basis for that finding.’” Brackett, 846 F.3d at 992 (quoting United States v. Montgomery, 527 F.3d 682, 686 (8th Cir. 2008)); see Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014) (noting that probable cause “is not a high bar”).