VI: Cell phone SW didn’t show nexus to crime; possession alone not enough

There was a lack of nexus to cell phone to this alleged crime which voids the search warrant for it, and the good faith exception does not apply. Just having a cell phone on one’s person doesn’t link it to their alleged crime. People v. Cumberbatch, 2025 VI 7, 2026 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 12 (May 8, 2026):

There is a lack of probable cause to search Cumberbatch’s cell phones for the crimes charged because Detective Jules’ affidavit presented the magistrate with no substantial basis to believe such evidence existed on Cumberbatch’s cell phones. It is obvious that—at the time the warrant was issued—no probable cause existed to believe that evidence of the crimes charged would be found on Cumberbatch’s cell phones.

An exhaustive review of the record, specifically the affidavit submitted in support of warrant application, provides no supporting factual allegation—hearsay or otherwise—that Detective Jules observed Cumberbatch in possession of or using a cell phone during the commission of the crimes charged. Here, the warrant application or affidavit does not provide a reasonable basis for the warrant to seize and search the defendant’s cell phones.

. . .

This conclusion is based on the fact that the affidavit provided no substantial basis to conclude that Cumberbatch used any cell phone in the murder of Mr. Benjamin and that it was unreasonable, without particularized supporting information, to expect that one or more of her cell phones would contain related or relevant evidence of first degree murder. More succinctly, Detective Jules’ affidavit failed to aver that the cell phones seized likely contained evidence of the crimes for which Cumberbatch was charged. A Fourth Amendment search is justified when the surrounding circumstances clearly confirm that evidence of an illegal activity will be found in a particular place. Gates, 462 U.S. 238. Accordingly, “[t]he affidavit must establish a nexus between the place to be searched and things to be seized, such that there is a substantial basis to believe that the things to be seized will be found in the place searched.” Bass, 785 F.3d at 1049.

Based on the affidavit of Detective Jules, there was no fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found on Cumberbatch’s cell phones that were seized or that a search of the cell phones would produce evidence of Cumberbatch’s wrongdoing. “Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow [the magistrate] to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusion” of the individual applying for a search warrant. Gates, 462 U.S. at 239.