State v. Goynes, 927 N.W.2d 346

On April 25, 2016, a woman (Barbara Williams) was fatally shot outside an Omaha apartment complex; police identified Michael E. Goynes, Jr. as a suspect and arrested him April 30, 2016.
Officers seized an LG cell phone from Goynes at arrest; Detective Larry Cahill obtained a warrant to search the phone’s contents and extracted electronically stored information.
Cahill’s warrant affidavit summarized eyewitness accounts (Taylor and Hawthorne) and video showing a white four‑door sedan arriving and leaving; both witnesses identified Goynes as the shooter.
Cahill’s affidavit described, based on his training and experience, why various categories of phone data (calls, messages, GPS, apps, media, browsing, etc.) were likely to contain evidence related to the homicide.
The county court issued the warrant; the district court denied Goynes’ pretrial motion to suppress the cell‑phone content, finding probable cause and sufficient particularity.
At trial Goynes was convicted of first‑degree murder and related weapon offenses; he appealed arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and was insufficiently particular.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Goynes)	Held
Whether affidavit established probable cause to search phone contents	Affidavit, eyewitness IDs, video, and detective’s experience made it reasonably probable phone contained evidence of the homicide	Affidavit lacked direct facts linking phone use to the shooting; detective’s generalizations about phones insufficient	Warrant supported by probable cause under totality of circumstances; affirmed
Whether warrant satisfied particularity requirement for phone search	Warrant limited search to specified categories of data tied to homicide investigation	Warrant was overbroad and functionally authorized search of the phone’s entire contents (akin to an "any and all" search)	Warrant sufficiently particular: identified homicide and listed discrete categories of data tied to investigation; not the broad catchall condemned in Henderson
Whether failure to object at trial waived challenges to printed phone records	N/A	Some printed data exhibits were not specifically objected to at trial, so any suppression challenge was waived	Failure to object to printouts waived appellate review of those exhibits; preserved challenge to phone/device itself was reviewed
Whether good‑faith exception needed to be addressed	N/A	If warrant defective, suppression might be required absent good faith	Court found probable cause and particularity; did not reach good‑faith exception

State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920, 870 N.W.2d 119 (preservation of suppression‑motion objections)
State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718, 884 N.W.2d 10 (appellate standard reviewing suppression rulings)
State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193, 835 N.W.2d 698 (totality‑of‑circumstances test for probable cause)
State v. Sprunger, 283 Neb. 531, 811 N.W.2d 235 (particularity and scope principles)
State v. Hidalgo, 296 Neb. 912, 896 N.W.2d 148 (four‑corners limitation on affidavit review)
State v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271, 854 N.W.2d 616 (limits on overly broad cell‑phone warrants; condemning catchall language)
State v. Baker, 298 Neb. 216, 903 N.W.2d 469 (particularity depends on item type and circumstances)
State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276, 900 N.W.2d 454 (courts need not reach unnecessary issues)