State v. Goynes, 303 Neb. 129

On April 25, 2016, Barbara Williams was found shot dead outside an Omaha apartment complex; police later identified Michael E. Goynes, Jr. as a suspect and arrested him April 30, 2016.
Goynes possessed an LG Tribute 5 cell phone at arrest; Detective Larry Cahill obtained a warrant to search the phone’s contents, supported by an affidavit describing eyewitness accounts, surveillance video, and Cahill’s training/experience about cell-phone evidence.
Witnesses Taylor and Saville Hawthorne identified Goynes as the shooter and described a white four‑door sedan arriving, Goynes exiting and firing multiple shots, then the sedan leaving; Hawthorne identified Goynes in a photo lineup.
The warrant listed specific categories of data to be searched (e.g., call logs, messages, media, GPS/cell‑tower data, browsing history, app data) tied to the homicide investigation; a separate provider‑records warrant was also obtained.
District court denied Goynes’ pretrial motion to suppress phone content; at trial the phone and extracted data were admitted (some printed exhibits were not separately objected to); jury convicted Goynes of first‑degree murder and related weapon offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of search warrant—probable cause to search phone content	State: affidavit (eyewitness IDs, video, phone possession, investigator experience) gave fair probability phone contained evidence	Goynes: affidavit lacked nexus showing phone would contain evidence of the shooting	Court: Probable cause satisfied under totality of circumstances; affidavit provided substantial basis to infer phone likely contained relevant evidence
Particularity—warrant sufficiently limited in scope	State: warrant identified homicide and listed specific phone data categories relevant to investigation	Goynes: warrant too broad—effectively authorized search of entire phone, similar to prior invalid warrants	Court: Warrant sufficiently particular; identified crime and listed search locations without an overbroad catchall, so scope tied to probable cause
Preservation of challenge to printed data exhibits	State: trial objection requirement to preserve error	Goynes: contends suppression error applies to printed extracts	Court: Failure to timely and specifically object to printed exhibits waived appellate review of those particular printouts
Need to reach good‑faith exception	State: officers relied on warrant; good‑faith could apply	Goynes: not argued here as primary	Court: No need to decide good‑faith because warrant upheld on probable cause and particularity grounds

State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 (preservation and standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271 (cell‑phone warrants must limit scope to content related to probable cause)
State v. Sprunger, 283 Neb. 531 (cell‑phone data relevance and probable‑cause context)
State v. Hidalgo, 296 Neb. 912 (four‑corners review of affidavits for warrants)
State v. Baker, 298 Neb. 216 (particularity requirement and degree of specificity for warrants)
State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718 (totality‑of‑circumstances test for probable cause)
U.S. v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913 (8th Cir.) (particularity and scope analysis for electronic searches)
State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276 (appellate courts need not reach unnecessary issues)