{"id":63760,"date":"2026-04-03T13:54:11","date_gmt":"2026-04-03T18:54:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=63760"},"modified":"2026-04-04T12:43:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-04T17:43:24","slug":"ca8-cell-phone-in-hands-of-drug-dealer-is-nexus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=63760","title":{"rendered":"CA8: Cell phone in hands of drug dealer is nexus"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Probable cause for a drug dealer\u2019s cell phone is shown because it\u2019s now commonly a \u201ctool of the trade.\u201d United States v. Jones<\/a>, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9643 (8th Cir. April 3, 2026):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

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 (\u201cIf firearms are tools of the drug trade \u2026 there is little reason to believe that cell phones are not.\u201d (citation modified)); see also United States v. Smith, 581 F.3d 692, 694 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing defendant\u2019s prior drug conviction in probable cause analysis). As we have previously noted, \u201c[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.\u201d Eggerson, 999 F.3d at 1127. Jones argues that the affidavit used only boilerplate language, but \u201c[w]e will not disturb a court\u2019s finding of probable cause \u2018unless there was no substantial basis for that finding.\u2019\u201d 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 \u201cis not a high bar\u201d).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Probable cause for a drug dealer\u2019s cell phone is shown because it\u2019s now commonly a \u201ctool of the trade.\u201d United States v. Jones, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 9643 (8th Cir. April 3, 2026):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,38],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63760","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-phones","category-nexus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=63760"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63760\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63778,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63760\/revisions\/63778"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=63760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=63760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=63760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}