State v. Westcott, 1605009135

Defendant Qualeel Westcott was arrested on May 11, 2016 and charged with attempted first‑degree murder, first‑degree robbery, and related counts arising from a shooting.
Police executed a consent search of an apartment where they found heroin, marijuana, and three mobile phones (two Samsungs and an iPhone); one Samsung was on the living room floor, another in the bed where Westcott said he slept, and the iPhone on the dining table.
Detective Sgt. Horsman applied for a warrant (issued May 24, 2016) to search the three phones for “data and cellular logs” to locate evidence or confessions relating to the shooting and heroin distribution.
Westcott moved to suppress: (1) statements made during an interview (State conceded suppression of post‑invocation statements) and (2) evidence seized from the mobile phones under the warrant.
The court granted suppression of the phone data, finding the affidavit failed to establish a sufficient nexus for probable cause and the warrant lacked the required particularity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of interview statements after invocation of counsel	State did not oppose suppression of statements after Westcott requested to speak to a judge	Westcott argued his ambiguous invocation required suppression of subsequent questioning	Suppressed by concession of the State (court accepted concession)
Probable cause to search mobile phones	Affidavit established ownership/possession of phones at scene and facts linking Westcott to the shooting and drug distribution, supporting a reasonable belief incriminating data would be found	Westcott argued affidavit lacked a logical nexus between phone ownership and presence of crime‑related digital evidence	Denied: affidavit did not allege facts tying phone ownership to evidentiary content; mere possession insufficient for probable cause
Particularity of warrant for digital data	Warrant authorized search of all “data and cellular logs,” which State argued was reasonably related to the investigation	Westcott argued the description was overly broad and amounted to a general warrant permitting exploratory rummaging through all phone data without temporal or content limits	Denied: warrant lacked the necessary particularity and temporal/content limits; search would permit unconstitutional broad rummaging

LeGrande v. State, 947 A.2d 1103 (Del. 2008) (probable cause requirement for search warrants)
Sisson v. State, 903 A.2d 288 (Del. 2006) (affidavit must permit judicial officer to form reasonable belief that evidence will be found at place to be searched)
Bradley v. State, 51 A.3d 423 (Del. 2012) (magistrate may draw reasonable inferences from affidavit)
Wheeler v. State, 135 A.3d 282 (Del. 2016) (warning against digital warrants becoming general warrants; need for heightened vigilance)
Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965) (historical objection to general warrants and need for particularity)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (distinction between particularized warrants and general exploratory searches)
United States v. Nine‑Two Thousand Four Hundred Twenty‑Two Dollars & Fifty‑Seven Cents ($92,422.57), 307 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2002) (standards on particularity and warrant scope)
United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1980) (standards for narrowing electronic search warrants)
United States v. Ford, 184 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 1999) (support for limiting electronic searches to relevant time periods)