Suspects Use Cell Phones, but So Do We: State v. Goynes and the Constitutional Dangers of Boilerplate Search Warrants

In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that a warrant is generally required for law enforcement to search a cell phone seized incident to a suspect’s arrest.1 Although this mandate seems clear,2 the Court did not outline what law enforcement must include in a cell phone search warrant to comport with the probable cause and particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment.3 As a result, state courts are left to determine when cell phone search warrants satisfy the Fourth Amendment.4 In applying Riley and analyzing the validity of cell phone search warrants, the Nebraska Supreme Court has tried to balance law enforcement’s need for evidence against citizens’ privacy interests in an increasingly digital age.5 Unfortunately, in its most recent case on this issue, State v. Goynes, the court failed to properly balance these conflicting interests.6 In Goynes, a criminal defendant challenged the district court’s refusal to suppress evidence that police recovered from a search of his cell phone, arguing the authorizing search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.7 Despite the shortcomings of the warrant, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s admission of the cell phone evidence, holding the warrant was supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular.8 This Note aims to articulate the shortcomings of the court’s decision in Goynes and the impact it has on Fourth Amendment protections in Nebraska. Part II of this Note will discuss the increased presence of cell phones in American society and rising privacy concerns as cell phones become more advanced.9 Additionally, Part II will discuss how the law governing search warrants has developed over time and the ongoing difficulty courts have had in applying traditional Fourth Amendment principles to advancing technology.10 Finally, Part II will discuss State v. Goynes, the Nebraska Supreme Court’s most recent failure regarding cell phone search warrants.11 Part III will discuss how the decision in Goynes established a dangerous precedent for lower courts to authorize broad, boilerplate cell phone search warrants that will expose Nebraska citizens to unreasonable searches in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.12 Part III will also offer an alternative approach to evaluating cell phone search warrants.1