United States v. Floy, 3:20-cr-00058

Background:

On Dec. 9–10, 2019 Bridgeport officers obtained and executed warrants to search Joshua Gilbert’s person and residence for “cell phones and their contents”; warrants were based on affidavits by Sgt. Amato and Officer Goncalves.
Affidavits relied on a confidential informant who reported observing Gilbert with a handgun, corroboration from a prior search that located a similar gun, Gilbert’s juvenile firearm convictions, gang membership, and that Gilbert had live-streamed a drive-by shooting on his phone.
During the Dec. 10, 2019 search officers seized two iPhones from Gilbert’s bedroom and, in plain view, suspected narcotics, $305, a Glock cleaning rod, gun oil, and a laser/flashlight attachment.
The warrants’ face pages did not identify the crime(s) for which evidence was sought; supporting affidavits/applications were incorporated but were not left with the executed warrants (with nondelivery authorized under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-33c).
The Government has not been able to extract data from the seized phones to date. Gilbert moved to suppress all fruits of the search, arguing lack of probable cause, insufficient particularity, and overbreadth; the Government invoked the good-faith exception.
The district court denied Gilbert’s motion: it found the affidavits established probable cause; the warrants were facially defective for failing to identify the crime on their faces, but the good-faith exception saved the seizure and evidence.

Issues:

Issue	Gilbert's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Probable cause to search phones/residence	Affidavits lacked sufficient, reliable facts to tie Gilbert to unlawful firearm possession or to show phones would contain evidence	Affidavits (CI corroboration, prior juvenile convictions, social-media posts, live stream) supplied a fair probability that phones contained evidence	Court: Probable cause existed when affidavits viewed in totality; issuing judge had substantial basis to issue warrants
Particularity: identification of offense on warrant face	Warrant invalid because it did not identify the crime on its face, violating particularity	Warrant incorporated supporting application/affidavit which specified the crime; officers relied on that material in executing search	Court: Warrants were facially defective for not naming the offense; incorporation alone could not cure nondelivery at execution, but this defect did not require suppression given good faith
Overbreadth / digital-content limits	Warrants authorized seizure of “cell phones and their contents” without meaningful subject-matter or temporal limits, risking exploratory searches	Warrants and affidavits described types of evidence sought (photos, videos related to shootings/firearms) and officers limited their search to phones tied to Gilbert	Court: Did not decide merits of digital-privacy specificity because phones’ contents were not yet accessed; noted potential concerns but found officers acted within articulated limitations
Good-faith exception to exclusionary rule	Affiants and executing officers were at least grossly negligent given facial defects; exclusion should apply	Officers reasonably relied on warrants and executed them consistent with limitations in affidavits and risk-assessment; good-faith exception applies	Court: Good-faith exception applies (officers reasonably relied on warrant; executing officers followed scope set in supporting materials); suppression denied

Key Cases Cited

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable-cause totality-of-the-circumstances test)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (particularity requirement: warrant, not supporting papers)
In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props., 830 F.3d 66 (incorporation/attachment issues for warrants)
United States v. Sandalo, 70 F.4th 77 (officers’ reliance on incorporated-but-unattached affidavit and good-faith analysis)
United States v. Ulbricht, 858 F.3d 71 (three-part particularity test for warrants)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (heightened privacy interests in cell phones)
United States v. Ganias, 824 F.3d 199 (privacy risks from broad seizure/retention of electronic data)
United States v. Rosa, 626 F.3d 56 (when exclusionary rule is justified; evaluating officer culpability)
United States v. Boles, 914 F.3d 95 (deference to magistrate’s probable-cause determination)