Baldwin, John Wesley, 664 S.W.3d 122

On Sept. 18, 2016 Adrianus Kusuma was murdered during a robbery; witnesses described two Black male perpetrators who fled in a white four‑door sedan.
Neighbors and security footage recorded a white sedan circling the neighborhood the day before and the day of the murder; one neighbor photographed its license plate.
The plate was registered to Baldwin’s stepfather, who told police he had sold the car to Baldwin; four days later Baldwin was stopped driving the sedan, arrested for traffic offenses, and consented to a search of the vehicle.
A Samsung Galaxy phone was found in the car; Baldwin refused to consent to search the phone, so investigators obtained a warrant supported by an affidavit that included factual details about the car sightings and generic (boilerplate) statements about how smartphones commonly store evidence.
The trial court suppressed the phone evidence; the court of appeals affirmed en banc; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted review and affirmed, holding boilerplate about phones cannot alone establish probable cause and must be tied to facts creating a nexus between device and crime.

Issue	State's Argument	Baldwin's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals improperly substituted its judgment for the magistrate regarding the nexus between Baldwin’s car and the car observed at the scene	Magistrate reasonably inferred the same sedan was observed by witnesses and on video; deference to magistrate should sustain the warrant	The affidavit lacked particularized facts tying Baldwin’s car to the car at the scene; magistrate’s inference was unreasonable	Court: lower court gave insufficient deference on the vehicle nexus but overall conclusion that nexus existed was supportable — court corrected the lower court’s analysis on this point but it did not alter the suppression result
Whether boilerplate descriptions of how smartphones are used can, by themselves, establish probable cause to search a phone	Boilerplate about common criminal use of phones suffices when combined with the fact Baldwin was linked to the suspect vehicle; particularized facts not required beyond that link	Boilerplate is conclusory; affidavit contained no facts showing the phone was used in planning, committing, or evidencing the crime, so probable cause was lacking	Court: Boilerplate may be used only when coupled with other particularized facts or reasonable inferences establishing a nexus between the device and the offense; here the affidavit lacked those facts, so suppression of phone evidence was proper

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause; conclusory allegations insufficient)
Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1933) (bare conclusory assertions do not establish probable cause)
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (U.S. 1964) (informant allegations must be corroborated; mere conclusions inadequate)
State v. Duarte, 389 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (warrants cannot issue on bare conclusions; need nexus between place to be searched and alleged crime)
Rodriguez v. State, 232 S.W.3d 55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (affidavits should be read in commonsense fashion but cannot rest on mere conclusory statements)
State v. McLain, 337 S.W.3d 268 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (reviewing courts must give great deference to magistrate’s probable‑cause determinations)
Walker v. State, 494 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (particularized facts tying phone to offense can support probable cause)
Diaz v. State, 604 S.W.3d 595 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (recovering phone parts at scene and other facts can supply nexus beyond boilerplate)
Tolentino v. State, 638 S.W.2d 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (suspicion and conjecture are insufficient for probable cause)