Johnson v. State, 2015 Ark. 387

On July 30, 2012, Charles Gaskins was shot and killed during an aggravated robbery at his trailer; two masked suspects were involved and identified as James Johnson III and Donte Davis.
Johnson was arrested later that day; officers seized a black Cricket ZTE cell phone from his person.
The phone was held in evidence for nearly two years; after Riley v. California, police obtained a search warrant on June 30, 2014, and searched the phone’s contents.
Detective Kevin Simpson’s affidavit recited (among other things) the homicide, identification of Johnson as a suspect, the phone’s seizure from Johnson upon arrest, and that Davis gave a taped statement implicating both men.
The phone yielded inculpatory material (e.g., a text message about facing life if caught and access to a news article about the homicide).
Johnson moved to suppress the phone search on grounds the affidavit lacked a nexus between the phone and the homicide; the circuit court denied the motion and Johnson appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the search-warrant affidavit established probable cause to search Johnson’s cell phone	Johnson: affidavit was "bare bones" and failed to show a nexus between the phone and the homicide	State: affidavit established sufficient nexus (phone seized on Johnson at arrest, suspects identified, codefendant implicated both)	Court affirmed: affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause to search the phone
Whether the good-faith exception (or post-Riley warrant requirement) applies to permit the search	Johnson: warrant was defective so good-faith exception inapplicable	State: warrant was supported by probable cause (thus remedy unnecessary)	Court found warrant valid; suppression not required

Menne v. State, 386 S.W.3d 451 (Ark. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Lee v. State, 308 S.W.3d 596 (Ark. 2009) (clearly erroneous standard explained)
Cockrell v. State, 370 S.W.3d 197 (Ark. 2010) (deference to trial court credibility findings at suppression hearings)
Ritter v. State, 385 S.W.3d 740 (Ark. 2011) (reversal only if ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence)
Jackson v. State, 427 S.W.3d 607 (Ark. 2013) (de novo review of suppression rulings with deference to factual findings)
Yancey v. State, 44 S.W.3d 315 (Ark. 2001) (probable cause for warrants must be established by affidavit/testimony)
Coggin v. State, 156 S.W.3d 712 (Ark. 2004) (magistrate’s practical, common-sense probable-cause determination)
George v. State, 189 S.W.3d 28 (Ark. 2006) (review confined to information in the affidavit)
Wagner v. State, 368 S.W.3d 914 (Ark. 2010) (scope of review of magistrate’s probable-cause finding)
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (warrant generally required to search digital contents of a cell phone)
United States v. Gholston, 993 F. Supp. 2d 704 (E.D. Mich. 2014) (cell-phone searches likely to reveal communications among co-participants)