180 F. Supp. 3d 491
W.D. Ky.2016Background
- Ramirez was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 1,000 kg of marijuana; his cell phone was seized at arrest on May 16, 2013.
- Detective Amber Petter swore an affidavit seeking a warrant to forensically examine Ramirez’s Verizon Motorola cell phone for "all personal files," including texts, contacts, and pictures.
- The affidavit recited Ramirez’s arrest, described the phone, and stated (based on Petter’s training/experience) that individuals may keep information on phones relating to crimes or co-defendants; it contained no specific factual details tying communications on this phone to alleged drug activity.
- A Jefferson County judge issued the warrant; the magistrate judge later recommended suppression of the phone evidence for lack of probable cause and lack of nexus.
- The district court reviewed de novo, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and granted Ramirez’s motion to suppress the forensic evidence from the phone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause to search the phone | Ramirez: affidavit only recites arrest and boilerplate training/experience; lacks particularized facts showing fair probability evidence would be on phone | United States: arrest while in possession of phone plus training/experience supports probable cause | Held: affidavit insufficient — conclusory and lacking facts showing fair probability evidence would be found on phone |
| Whether the affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the phone and evidence sought | Ramirez: no specific facts connecting this phone to drug activity or communications | United States: possession at arrest and assertion that phones are tools of traffickers create nexus | Held: nexus not established; mere possession at arrest and generalizations are insufficient |
| Whether Leon good-faith exception salvages the search | Ramirez: affidavit so lacking that officers could not reasonably rely on warrant | United States: officers reasonably relied on issued warrant | Held: good-faith exception does not apply because affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that reliance was unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dyer, 580 F.3d 386 (6th Cir.) (probable-cause review limited to four corners of affidavit)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S. 2014) (generally requires warrant before searching cell phones)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause assessed in a practical, common-sense manner)
- United States v. Bass, 785 F.3d 1043 (6th Cir.) (nexus requirement between place searched and items to be seized)
- United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372 (6th Cir.) (good-faith analysis and magistrate’s detached review)
- United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591 (6th Cir.) (good-faith exception applied where affidavit contained connecting facts)
- United States v. Washington, 380 F.3d 236 (6th Cir.) (affidavit facts can satisfy Leon’s "so lacking" standard)
- United States v. Schultz, 14 F.3d 1093 (6th Cir.) (training/experience cannot substitute for missing evidentiary nexus)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)