Stevenson v. State, 168 A.3d 967

Background

On July 22–23, 2015 Timothy Stevenson was connected to an assault/robbery of David Pethel; when arrested he had Pethel’s wallet and sandals and a cell phone he identified as his.
Detective Houseman applied for and obtained a second warrant (after an earlier warrant had been used) to search Stevenson’s Huawei smartphone for “any and all information,” limited to an 18‑hour period encompassing the assault.
Houseman’s affidavit recited the facts of the assault, Stevenson’s admission, the detective’s training/experience, and the statement that "suspects in robberies and assaults will sometimes take pictures, videos and send messages about their criminal activities on their cellular phones."
Execution of the second warrant recovered six photographs showing Pethel injured; Stevenson moved to suppress those photos on probable‑cause and overbreadth grounds.
The trial court denied suppression; Stevenson was convicted of multiple offenses. On appeal the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the warrant affidavit provided a substantial basis for probable cause and, alternatively, that the Leon good‑faith exception applied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stevenson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the affidavit established probable cause/nexus between the crime and the phone	Affidavit relied on a generalized claim ("sometimes") and lacked specific facts connecting the phone to the assault, so no fair probability evidence was on the phone	Affidavit plus detailed crime facts, the defendant’s admission, limited temporal scope, and officer experience gave a fair probability evidence would be on the phone	The warrant affidavit, viewed in totality, supplied a substantial basis for probable cause; warrant upheld
Whether evidence should be suppressed even if warrant lacked probable cause (Leon good‑faith)	No reasonable officer could rely on a warrant based chiefly on a generalized training‑and‑experience statement	Two neutral judges approved similar affidavits; reasonable officers could rely on the warrant	Even if probable cause were lacking, the Leon good‑faith exception applies; evidence admissible
Whether Riley’s privacy concerns bar using prevalence of phones as basis for a warrant	The ubiquity/privacy of phones means courts should demand a stronger nexus, not rely on generalized officer assertions	Riley requires warrants but does not forbid magistrates from inferring probable cause from common‑sense and officer experience	Riley’s privacy concerns considered, but do not preclude issuance of warrants when totality of affidavit gives fair probability evidence is on the phone
Whether the affidavit was a "bare bones" affidavit for Leon analysis	Affidavit was functionally bare bones because it offered only experience-based assertion absent phone‑specific facts	Affidavit contained factual narrative, temporal limitation, and the affiant’s training—more than conclusory statements	Affidavit was not bare bones; police reliance was objectively reasonable and good‑faith exception applies

Key Cases Cited

Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (cell phones hold extensive private data; warrants required absent exigency)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause judged under the totality of the circumstances; fair probability standard)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (practical, nontechnical conception of probable cause)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (affidavit inferences draw on officer experience; reviewing courts give due weight)
Moats v. State, 455 Md. 682 (2017) (companion case addressing warrants for cell phones; affidavit there upheld)
Stevenson v. State, 455 Md. 709 (2017) (this decision; warrant upheld and Leon applied)
Agurs v. State, 415 Md. 62 (2010) (nexus requirement between suspected criminal activity and place to be searched)
Patterson v. State, 401 Md. 76 (2007) (discusses "bare bones" affidavits and good‑faith analysis)