Baldwin, John Wesley, PD-0027-21

Capital murder and robbery were committed by two male suspects over two days in a residential neighborhood with limited access (a circling boulevard with cul-de-sacs).
Witnesses saw the offenders flee in a white, four‑door sedan; a neighbor photographed that car’s license plate the day before the murder after observing the car circling the neighborhood.
Surveillance video from the day before and the day of the murder showed a car matching the photographed vehicle circling the neighborhood and pausing near a house a few doors down from the crime scene.
Four days after the murder, police stopped the car bearing the photographed plate; Baldwin was the driver and his cell phone was recovered from the vehicle during a consensual search.
The magistrate considered a probable‑cause affidavit that included both boilerplate language about cell phones and the particularized facts above; the court’s majority found the affidavit insufficient to establish a nexus between the phone and the offenses.
Judge Keller (dissenting) argued the particularized facts plus the nature of the crime (two perpetrators acting in concert) supplied a sufficient nexus for a warrant to search the phone.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether affidavit established probable cause to search Baldwin’s cell phone (nexus between device and offense)	Phone was found in vehicle tied to the crime; surveillance, license‑plate photo, and witness accounts link the car to the murder, so the phone in that car likely contains evidence	Affidavit relied in part on generic/boilerplate cellphone language and did not uniquely link the phone to the crimes	Dissent would hold affidavit sufficient to establish probable cause; majority held affidavit insufficient (dissent explains why nexus exists)
Whether boilerplate cellphone language may be considered in a probable‑cause affidavit	Boilerplate may be considered but only in conjunction with particularized facts and reasonable inferences	Boilerplate standing alone cannot supply the nexus needed for PC	Court (per dissent) agrees boilerplate alone is insufficient; it can be considered when coupled with particularized facts
Whether the nature of the offense (capital murder by two actors over two days) supports an inference of cellphone use and thus nexus	Capital, coordinated crime likely involves planning/communication by cellphone, so evidence of coordination likely on phone	For some crimes, phone presence may be insignificant; the mere presence of a phone in a car is not always probative	Dissent views the coordinated nature of the crime as a meaningful factor supporting probable cause to search the phone

State v. Baldwin, 614 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (appellate dissent noting suspects commonly use cellphones to plan crimes)
United States v. James, 3 F.4th 1102 (8th Cir. 2021) (upholding warrant to obtain cell‑site records to link a phone to multiple robberies)
People v. Reyes, 174 N.E.3d 127 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020) (search of phone recovered from defendant’s car upheld as supporting inference phone was present during offense)
State v. Every, 274 So.3d 770 (La. App. 2018) (phone found in defendant’s car sufficiently connected to robbery and murder where defendants acted together)