State v. Goynes, 303 Neb. 129

On April 25, 2016, a woman (Barbara Williams) was fatally shot outside an Omaha apartment complex; police later identified Michael E. Goynes Jr. as a suspect and arrested him on April 30, 2016.
Officers seized an LG Tribute 5 cell phone from Goynes at arrest; Detective Larry Cahill applied for and obtained a warrant to search the phone and extract electronically stored information.
Cahill’s affidavit summarized eyewitness accounts (Taylor and Hawthorne), video showing a white four‑door sedan arriving and leaving the scene, and that Hawthorne (a relative) positively identified Goynes as the shooter.
Cahill explained, based on training and experience, that cell‑phone data (calls, messages, media, GPS, app data, browsing history, etc.) commonly contain evidence relevant to violent crimes and listed specific categories of data to be searched.
The county court issued the warrant authorizing a broad list of phone data categories; the district court denied Goynes’ pretrial motion to suppress the phone content and later admitted the phone and extracted data at trial.
A jury convicted Goynes of first‑degree murder and related weapon offenses; he appealed, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and sufficient particularity.

Issue	Goynes' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Probable cause for phone-content warrant	Affidavit did not establish a fair probability that phone content would contain evidence of the homicide	Affidavit’s eyewitness IDs, video, phone possession at arrest, and investigator experience gave a fair probability phone data would yield evidence	Warrant supported by probable cause; affidavit provided substantial basis for magistrate’s finding
Particularity of warrant scope	Warrant authorized effectively a search of all phone content; scope was overbroad and similar to warrants condemned in Henderson	Warrant identified the homicide and listed specific categories of data reasonably related to the investigation; no catch‑all language	Warrant met particularity: listed searchable areas tied to the homicide and was not an unbounded catch‑all
Preservation of objection to printed extracts	Pretrial suppression motion should preserve all complaints about phone evidence	Defense failed to timely, specific objection at trial to printed data; waiver applies	Objection to printed extracts waived for appeal; court nonetheless resolved substantive warrant issues for challenged disk/phone evidence

State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 (discussing preservation and objection requirements)
State v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271 (warrant for cell phone must limit search to content related to probable cause; condemned broad catch‑all language)
State v. Sprunger, 283 Neb. 531 (probable‑cause principles for electronic searches)
State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193 (totality‑of‑circumstances review of affidavits)
State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718 (appellate standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
State v. Baker, 298 Neb. 216 (particularity requirement and degree of specificity)
State v. Hidalgo, 296 Neb. 912 (limits appellate review to four corners of affidavit)
State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276 (courts need not decide good‑faith exception where warrant is valid)
U.S. v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913 (8th Cir.) (discussing specificity for electronic searches)