- 129 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

State of Nebraska, appellee, v.

Michael E. Goynes, Jr., appel

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed May 17, 2019. No. S-18-135.

1. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Motions to Suppress: 

Appeal and Error. In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to 

suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an 

appellate court applies a two-part standard of review. Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear 

error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment 

protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination.

2. Pretrial Procedure: Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Where there 

has been a pretrial ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence, a party 

must make a timely and specific objection to the evidence when it is 

offered at trial in order to preserve any error for appellate review.

3. Trial: Evidence: Motions to Suppress: Waiver: Appeal and Error. 

The failure to object to evidence at trial, even though the evidence was 

the subject of a previous motion to suppress, waives the objection, and 

a party will not be heard to complain of the alleged error on appeal.

4. Search Warrants: Affidavits: Probable Cause: Appeal and Error. In 

reviewing the strength of an affidavit submitted as a basis for finding 

probable cause to issue a search warrant, an appellate court applies a 

totality of the circumstances test.

5. ____: ____: ____: ____. In reviewing the strength of an affidavit submitted as a basis for finding probable cause to issue a search warrant, 

the question is whether, under the totality of the circumstances illustrated by the affidavit, the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for 

finding that the affidavit established probable cause.

6. Search Warrants: Probable Cause: Words and Phrases. Probable 

cause sufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant means a fair 

probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

06/21/2019 01:06 AM CDT
- 130 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

7. Search Warrants: Affidavits: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In evaluating the sufficiency of an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant, 

an appellate court is restricted to consideration of the information and 

circumstances contained within the four corners of the affidavit, and 

evidence which emerges after the warrant is issued has no bearing on 

whether the warrant was validly issued.

8. Search Warrants: Probable Cause. The particularity requirement for 

search warrants is distinct from, but closely related to, the requirement 

that a warrant be supported by probable cause.

9. Search Warrants. A purpose of the particularity requirement for a 

search warrant is to prevent the issuance of warrants on loose, vague, or 

doubtful bases of fact.

10. Constitutional Law: Search Warrants: Police Officers and Sheriffs. 

To satisfy the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment, a 

warrant must be sufficiently definite to enable the searching officer to 

identify the property authorized to be seized. The degree of specificity 

required depends on the circumstances of the case and on the type of 

items involved.

11. Search Warrants: Probable Cause: Evidence. A search warrant may 

be sufficiently particular even though it describes the items to be seized 

in broad or generic terms if the description is as particular as the supporting evidence will allow, but the broader the scope of a warrant, the 

stronger the evidentiary showing must be to establish probable cause.

12. Search and Seizure: Search Warrants: Probable Cause. A warrant 

for the search of the contents of a cell phone must be sufficiently limited 

in scope to allow a search of only that content that is related to the probable cause that justifies the search.

13. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an 

analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy 

before it.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Pete

C. Bataillon, Judge. Affirme

Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and 

Matthew J. Miller for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. 

Vincent for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stac

Papik, and Freudenberg,
- 131 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

Funke, 

Michael E. Goynes, Jr., appeals his convictions of murder in 

the first degree, use of a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit 

a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited 

person. On appeal, Goynes challenges the district court’s failure to suppress cell phone data content acquired through the 

execution of a search warrant. Goynes claims the warrant was 

unsupported by probable cause and insufficiently particular. 

The State, in turn, argues that the warrant was supported by 

probable cause and sufficiently particular and that the officers 

who executed the warrant acted in good faith. For the reasons 

set forth herein, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

At 4:25 p.m. on April 25, 2016, Omaha Police Department 

officers responded to a report of shots fired at an apartment 

complex in Omaha, Nebraska. In front of the complex, the 

officers found Barbara Williams on the ground in a pool of 

blood. Williams had been shot in the chest, and paramedics 

pronounced her dead at the scene.

As a result of a subsequent investigation, officers identified 

Goynes as a suspect and took him into custody on April 30, 

2016. Goynes had an “LG Tribute 5” cell phone in his possession when he was arrested. Det. Larry Cahill submitted 

an application for a search warrant authorizing examination 

of the cell phone and the extraction of electronically stored 

information. In the supporting affidavit, Cahill stated his belief 

that data from the cell phone would assist him in determining the course of events regarding the homicide investigation 

of Williams.

The factual basis Cahill provided in his affidavit explained 

that on Monday, April 25, 2016, officers responded to the 

shooting at the apartment complex. Upon their arrival, the 

officers observed Williams deceased in front of the complex 

with an apparent gunshot wound to her torso. The officers then 

undertook an investigation wherein several potential witnesses 

to the shooting were interviewed.
- 132 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

The affidavit stated that around 4:20 p.m. on April 25, 

2016, a witness heard approximately four or five gunshots and 

observed a white, four-door sedan parked just east of the north 

entrance facing the apartments. The witness then observed a 

black male wearing a white T-shirt, gray pants, and a darkcolored hat holding a handgun in his right hand and walking 

toward the sedan. The black male got into the driver’s side of 

the sedan, which left the area quickly, traveling east on Boyd 

Street toward North 48th Street.

This account was supported by video described in the affidavit. In the video, which showed various views of the front 

of the apartment complex, investigators observed a white, 

four-door sedan drive past the front of the complex’s entrance, 

where officers later located Williams, and park in a spot east 

of that entrance. The officers observed an unidentified party 

travel from where the sedan was parked, approach the elevated 

stoop of the entrance, and return back to the sedan’s location. 

The video then showed the sedan leaving, traveling east on 

Boyd Street.

Cahill’s affidavit described interviews occurring on April 

29, 2016, with two other potential witnesses, George Taylor 

and Saville Hawthorne, who claimed to know the identity of 

the suspect.

Taylor’s interview provided that Taylor and Hawthorne 

drove to a parking space across the street from the apartment complex at 4 p.m. on April 25, 2016. Taylor described 

that Hawthorne and Williams were friends and that after 

Taylor parked his vehicle facing the entrance of the complex, 

Hawthorne briefly went to talk to Williams before returning to the vehicle. Once Hawthorne returned to the vehicle, 

Taylor observed a white, four-door sedan pull into a parking 

spot just east of the apartment entrance where Williams was 

located. Taylor stated he observed a black male wearing a 

white T-shirt, dark pants, and a black hat exit the sedan, possibly from the back seat. Taylor indicated that he saw additional 

parties inside the white sedan, but that those individuals did 
- 133 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

not exit the sedan. Upon exiting the sedan, the black male 

began walking toward the elevated stoop where Williams was 

sitting. Taylor identified the man as Goynes, also known as 

“‘Gang Bang,’” explaining that Goynes is Hawthorne’s cousin 

and a known gang member. Taylor described that Goynes then 

began firing a black handgun toward the stoop in front of 

the entrance. Taylor stated that two men, whom he knew as 

“‘Action’” and “‘Stay Ready,’” were sitting on the elevated 

stoop near Williams and that he believed Goynes was shooting 

at these men. Taylor stated he watched Goynes fire approximately 10 times, firing all the way up to the entryway stairs 

and toward where he saw “‘Action’” and “‘Stay Ready’” running. Taylor then sought cover and did not see Goynes or the 

sedan leave.

In Hawthorne’s interview, she stated that she rode to the 

apartment complex with Taylor and that they parked facing the 

entrance of the complex. After noticing several friends, including Williams, sitting on the stoop in front of the entrance, 

she went over and “sat with them for a couple minutes.” 

Hawthorne was then called away and left the stoop to return 

to the vehicle, where she sat in the front passenger seat. While 

in the vehicle, Hawthorne observed a white, four-door sedan 

approach and park on the east side of the entrance and saw 

a black male exit the sedan from the rear driver’s side seat. 

The man that exited the sedan, whom Hawthorne identified as 

her cousin Goynes, walked toward the stoop and pulled out a 

black handgun from his waist which he used to shoot toward 

the stoop at least 10 times. Hawthorne believed Goynes was 

shooting at two men on the stoop she identified as “‘Action’” 

and “‘Stay Ready,’” whom she observed fled into the courtyard of the apartment complex. Hawthorne explained that 

Goynes ran up the stairs of the stoop and continued to shoot 

toward the courtyard before heading back and getting into the 

sedan. Hawthorne described that the sedan left the scene eastbound toward 48th Street. Hawthorne clarified she was “100% 

sure” Goynes was the shooter and was able to positively 
- 134 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

identify him from a photographic lineup, as well as “‘Action’” 

and “‘Stay Ready.’”

Cahill asserted in his affidavit that there was data on the 

cell phone related to the offense and listed the areas in which 

that data could be found. Cahill supported his assertion by 

explaining:

From training, experience and research Affiant Officer 

is aware that the data on cell phones can provide invaluable insight for criminal investigations. Cell phones are 

used for communication, access to information, socialization, research, entertainment, shopping and other functionality. In addition to personal use, cell phones are often 

used as tools in criminal activity. Affiant Officer is aware 

of numerous instances where cell phones were used by 

participants in crimes to communicate via voice and text 

messaging, occasions when they took photographs of 

themselves with weapons and/or illegal narcotics, times 

when they created videos of their criminal activity and 

instances when the Internet was used to research crimes 

they participated in, just to name a few. As such a cell 

phone can serve both as an instrument for committing 

a crime, as well as a storage medium for evidence of 

the crime.

Cell phone data can assist investigators in determining the culpability of participants in criminal investigations. This is because the data can potentially provide 

a wealth of information that can assist in determining 

the motivation, method and participants involved in an 

incident. Information on the devices can provide invaluable insight to the who, what, when, where and why an 

incident occurred.

Cahill continued by explaining the kind of information the 

listed types of cell phone data could provide to investigators.

The county court found probable cause to support the 

warrant and granted Cahill’s application. In the warrant, the 

court identified the warrant was in relation to the Williams’ 
- 135 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

homicide and authorized the search of the cell phone data 

described in the affidavit, including: cell phone information and configurations; user account information; call logs; 

contact lists; short and multimedia messaging service messages; chat and instant messages; email messages; installed 

applications and their corresponding data; media files such 

as images, videos, audio, and document files; internet browsing history; cell tower connections; global positioning system 

fixes, waypoints, routes, and tracks; Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and 

synchronization connection history; memorandums and notes; 

user dictionary; and calendar information.

A subsequent application seeking the cell phone records 

from Goynes’ cell phone provider was also granted but is not 

at issue in the instant appeal.

Goynes was charged with murder in the first degree, use of 

a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony, and possession 

of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person.

Prior to trial, Goynes filed a motion to suppress all evidence 

obtained from the search of his cell phone records for the 

reason that such search was conducted in violation of the 4th, 

5th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and article 

I, §§ 3, 7, 11, and 12 of the Nebraska Constitution. A hearing 

was held on the motion, and the district court clarified with 

Goynes that his motion was for both the cell phone records 

and the contents of his cell phone. The search warrant applications, affidavits, warrants, and other evidence were received as 

exhibits for the motion to suppress.

Cahill testified during the hearing and explained the process of applying for the warrants and that he relied on the warrants when he performed the search of the cell phone, its data, 

and its records. On cross-examination, he agreed that the witnesses described in the affidavits did not provide any information or evidence that the shooter was using a cell phone 

in the minutes immediately preceding or after the shooting, 

that the shooter communicated about the shooting over his 

cell phone, that the shooter took photographs or video of the 
- 136 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

shooting, or that the shooter communicated about the shooting on social media.

The court overruled Goynes’ motion and found the warrant 

for the content of Goynes’ cell phone was supported by probable cause provided in the affidavit. The court also found the 

warrant was sufficiently particular concerning the data to be 

searched, the warrant was not overly broad, and the officers 

exercised good faith in performing the search.

The case continued to a jury trial. Cahill testified for the 

State, and during that testimony, the State offered Goynes’ 

cell phone and a compact disc containing data extracted 

from the cell phone. Goynes renewed his objection to these 

exhibits based upon his motion to suppress, and the court 

overruled it.

The State also called an investigator with the Omaha Police 

Department’s digital forensics squad as a witness. During his 

testimony, the State offered printed copies of the cell phone 

data detailing activity and internet searches that Goynes performed on his cell phone between April 25 and 30, 2016. The 

data contained in these printouts were select datasets of the 

information contained on the compact disc and Goynes’ cell 

phone which were previously offered into evidence during 

Cahill’s testimony. Goynes did not specifically object when 

these exhibits were presented.

According to the data contained in these exhibits, Goynes 

used the internet throughout the morning and early afternoon on April 25, 2016. Notably, Goynes repeatedly accessed 

Facebook between 3:38 and 4:19 p.m. and then stopped. There 

were no cell phone calls, text messages, or internet browsing 

history between 4:19 and 5:08 p.m. that day. At 5:08 p.m., 

Goynes again began accessing Facebook and, at 5:10 p.m., visited the website of a local television news station and viewed 

an article about the shooting before returning to Facebook. 

Later that day, Goynes again accessed Facebook and, at 9:15 

p.m., visited the website of another local television news station and viewed another article about the shooting before 
- 137 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

returning to Facebook. On April 30, the date Goynes turned 

himself in to police, the cell phone was again used to access an 

article related to the shooting. On that same day between the 

hours of 12:42 and 7:40 a.m., the cell phone was used to search 

various websites using the name “Michael Goynes,” or variations of that name, as the search term.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict 

finding Goynes guilty of all counts. Goynes was sentenced to 

life imprisonment for murder in the first degree, 45 to 50 years’ 

imprisonment for use of a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit 

a felony, and 20 to 25 years’ imprisonment for possession of a 

deadly weapon by a prohibited person.

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Goynes assigns, restated, that the district court erred in failing to suppress cell phone data content acquired through the 

execution of a warrant that was unsupported by probable cause 

and insufficiently particular.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, 

an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review.1

Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial 

court’s findings for clear error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of 

law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial 

court’s determination.2

IV. ANALYSIS

[2,3] We initially note Goynes failed to object to the printouts of the cell phone data offered during the digital forensics 

investigator’s trial testimony. Where there has been a pretrial 

ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence, a party must 

1 State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920, 870 N.W.2d 119 (2015).

2 Id.
- 138 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

make a timely and specific objection to the evidence when it 

is offered at trial in order to preserve any error for appellate 

review.3 The failure to object to evidence at trial, even though 

the evidence was the subject of a previous motion to suppress, 

waives the objection, and a party will not be heard to complain 

of the alleged error on appeal.4 Therefore, Goynes’ assignments 

as they relate to the printouts were waived and not adequately 

preserved for appellate review.

However, Goynes did object to the introduction of the cell 

phone and the compact disc containing the cell phone data. As 

such, and because we find the warrant met the probable cause 

and particularity requirements of the Fourth Amendment and 

article I, § 7, we address the substance of Goynes’ claims on 

the validity of the warrant, even though he failed to object to 

the exhibits containing the printed data from the cell phone and 

failed to preserve a challenge to those exhibits for review.

1. Validity of Search War

The Fourth Amendment provides that warrants may not be 

granted “but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and 

the persons or things to be seized.” The Nebraska Constitution, 

under article I, § 7, similarly provides that “no warrant shall 

issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and 

the person or thing to be seized.”

(a) Probable Cause

[4-7] In reviewing the strength of an affidavit submitted as 

a basis for finding probable cause to issue a search warrant, 

an appellate court applies a totality of the circumstances test.5

The question is whether, under the totality of the circumstances 

3 State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718, 884 N.W.2d 10 (2016).

4 Id.

5 State v. Wiedeman, 286 Neb. 193, 835 N.W.2d 698 (2013).
- 139 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

illustrated by the affidavit, the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for finding that the affidavit established probable 

cause.6 Probable cause sufficient to justify issuance of a search 

warrant means a fair probability that contraband or evidence 

of a crime will be found.7 In evaluating the sufficiency of an 

affidavit used to obtain a search warrant, an appellate court is 

restricted to consideration of the information and circumstances 

contained within the four corners of the affidavit, and evidence 

which emerges after the warrant is issued has no bearing on 

whether the warrant was validly issued.8

In the affidavit executed in support of the search warrant 

application, Cahill provided observations from officers investigating the scene of the shooting, summaries of interviews 

conducted of witnesses to the shooting, and a description of 

video showing events surrounding the shooting. Specifically, 

Taylor and Hawthorne gave eyewitness accounts of the shooting and identified Goynes as the shooter. Both Taylor and 

Hawthorne were acquainted with Goynes prior to the act, 

as Hawthorne and Goynes were cousins. Hawthorne picked 

Goynes out of a photographic lineup as well as the two men 

Taylor and Hawthorne believed were the targets of the shooting. Additionally, their accounts were supported by an eyewitness account, the video of the white sedan arriving and 

leaving the scene, and the observations of the officers upon 

arriving at the scene.

Goynes had the cell phone in his possession when he 

was arrested, and Cahill, through his training and experience, 

described why the cell phone likely had information relevant to 

the shooting investigation. Cahill explained that cell phone data 

provides insight for criminal investigations in that cell phones 

are used for communication, access to information, socialization, research, entertainment, shopping, and other functionality 

6 Id.

7 State v. Sprunger, 283 Neb. 531, 811 N.W.2d 235 (2012).

8 State v. Hidalgo, 296 Neb. 912, 896 N.W.2d 148 (2017).
- 140 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

and that these uses are often found to be tools in criminal 

activity. Cahill further explained that the data from cell phones 

can provide information on the motivation, method, and participants involved in a crime. Cahill stated that he was aware 

of numerous instances where cell phones were used by participants in crimes to communicate through voice and text messaging, take photographs of themselves with weapons or illegal 

narcotics, create videos of their criminal activity, and research 

crimes in which they participated. Cahill opined that these uses 

demonstrate a cell phone can serve as both an instrument for 

committing a crime and as a storage medium for evidence of 

the crime.

The factual basis provided in Cahill’s affidavit is similar to 

the one described in State v. Henderson.

9

 In that case, two men 

were shot and two men were seen running from the scene. The 

affidavits provided to the county court established that there 

was a fair probability that the defendant, Tillman Henderson, 

was involved in the shootings and that he had a cell phone in 

his possession when he was taken into custody shortly after 

the shootings. The officer seeking the warrant also provided 

language that, in his experience as a detective, he knew suspects used cell phones to communicate about shootings they 

have been involved in before, during, and after the shootings 

and that such communications could be through, inter alia, 

voice or text messages or social media. In determining that the 

affidavits provided the county court a substantial basis to find 

probable cause existed to search the cell phone, we found that 

it is reasonable to infer that Henderson’s cell phone was used 

to communicate with others regarding the shootings before, 

during, or after they occurred, because Henderson was working 

with at least one other person to commit the shootings.10

In the instant case, Goynes had the cell phone in his possession at the time he was taken into custody and the affidavit 

9 State v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271, 854 N.W.2d 616 (2014).

10 Id.
- 141 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

established it was a fair probability that Goynes had committed the shooting. There were additionally witness accounts 

summarized in the affidavit that described Goynes’ committing the shooting with the aid of one or more other people, 

and Cahill described how, in his experience as an investigator, 

individuals who committed similar crimes commonly communicate, research, record, and perform other operations on 

their cell phones that would amount to evidence of the crime. 

Although the content of the affidavit pertaining to how suspects use cell phones standing alone may not always be sufficient probable cause, when considered with all of the facts 

recited above, as we determined in Henderson, the affidavit 

provided a substantial basis to find probable cause existed to 

search the cell phone data.

(b) Particularity

[8,9] In addition to the requirement of probable cause, the 

Fourth Amendment and article I, § 7, contain a particularity requirement describing the place to be searched and the 

persons or things to be seized. The particularity requirement 

for search warrants is distinct from, but closely related to, the 

requirement that a warrant be supported by probable cause.11 A 

purpose of the particularity requirement for a search warrant is 

to prevent the issuance of warrants on loose, vague, or doubtful 

bases of fact.12

[10-12] To satisfy the particularity requirement of the Fourth 

Amendment, a warrant must be sufficiently definite to enable 

the searching officer to identify the property authorized to be 

seized.13 The degree of specificity required depends on the 

circumstances of the case and on the type of items involved.14

11 State v. Baker, 298 Neb. 216, 903 N.W.2d 469 (2017).

12 Sprunger, supra note 7.

13 Baker, supra note 11. See, also, U.S. v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 

2014).

14 See, Sigillito, supra note 13; Baker, supra note 11.
- 142 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

A search warrant may be sufficiently particular even though 

it describes the items to be seized in broad or generic terms 

if the description is as particular as the supporting evidence 

will allow, but the broader the scope of a warrant, the stronger 

the evidentiary showing must be to establish probable cause.15

As relevant to the instant case, a warrant for the search of the 

contents of a cell phone must be sufficiently limited in scope to 

allow a search of only that content that is related to the probable cause that justifies the search.16

Here, as detailed in the previous section, Cahill’s affidavit 

provided probable cause that Goynes committed the shooting and that he was aided by others. When Goynes was 

taken into custody, he had the cell phone in his possession. 

Cahill explained cell phone data provides insight for criminal 

investigations on the motivation, method, and participants in 

that cell phones are used for communication, access to information, socialization, research, entertainment, shopping, and 

other functionality. Accordingly, Cahill listed several types of 

data he was seeking to search through the warrant and how 

the data was relevant to the investigation. These types of data 

included the following: cell phone information, configurations, 

calendar events, notes, and user account information which 

could identify who owns or was using a cell phone; call logs 

which could establish familiarity between people involved 

and timelines of an incident; short and multimedia messaging service messages, chat and instant messages, and emails 

which could provide insight to establish an individual’s level 

of culpability and knowledge of the incident; installed application data which could aid in determining a user’s historical 

geographic location and demonstrate the user’s association 

with investigated people, location, and events; media files such 

as images, videos, audio, and documents which could provide 

15 Baker, supra note 11.

16 See Henderson, supra note 9.
- 143 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

times and locations, as well as firsthand documentation of the 

incident; internet browsing history which could demonstrate 

the planning, desire, and participation in a crime; cell tower 

connections, global positioning system data, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 

and synchronization logs which could provide information on 

location in relation to the incident; and user dictionary information which could demonstrate familiarity with the crime 

being investigated.

The county court used the list sought by Cahill and restated 

these types of data in the warrant as the areas permitted to be 

searched. From the facts surrounding the shooting and Cahill’s 

explanation of the areas in the cell phone he was seeking to 

search, the court had a substantial basis to find probable cause 

that evidence relevant to the shooting was accessible data in 

the areas listed.

Goynes argues the scope of the search authorized in the 

warrant was too broad and was similar to warrants we determined did not meet the particularity requirement in Henderson. 

Goynes contends that the areas which the warrant permitted 

to be searched encompassed the entirety of the data contained 

within the cell phone and that Henderson condemns the allowance of such a search of “‘any and all’” information stored on 

a cell phone.17

However, Henderson does not stand for the rule that a 

search of a cell phone cannot be expansive; instead, we held 

that the unlimited search of the cell phone in that case did 

not align with the justifying probable cause.18 The Henderson

warrants failed to refer to a specific crime being investigated. 

In addition, while the warrants in Henderson listed types of 

cell phone data to search, such as calls and text messages, 

they also authorized a search of “‘any other information that 

can be gained from the internal components and/or memory 

17 Brief for appellant at 25.

18 Henderson, supra note 9.
- 144 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

Cards.’”19 In finding the warrants were insufficiently particular, we noted the privacy interests arising from a cell phone’s 

immense storage capacity, ability to store many different types 

of information, functionality as a digital record of nearly every 

aspect of the owner’s life, and ability to access data located 

elsewhere.20 We concluded that a warrant for the search of the 

contents of a cell phone must be sufficiently limited in scope 

to allow a search of only that content that is related to the 

probable cause that justifies the search.21 We further held that 

by including such a catchall phrase as “‘any other information,’” a warrant fails to set parameters for the search of this 

substantial device and limit the search to only that content that 

is related to the probable cause justifying the search.22

Unlike Henderson, the warrant in the instant case did identify it was for the investigation for the homicide of Williams. 

The warrant also did not contain such unqualified language 

that would permit the search of the cell phone for “‘any other 

information.’”23 Instead, the warrant listed specific areas to be 

searched within the cell phone. These areas were described in 

the affidavit, along with a description of the information they 

held which would be relevant to the investigation.

The affidavit authored by Cahill set forth sufficient probable cause to justify the search of the cell phone and sufficient 

particularity to identify the locations on the cell phone to be 

searched and the content to be seized. As a result, the court 

had a substantial basis for finding that probable cause existed 

to issue a warrant for these areas, and the warrant limited the 

scope in listing specific areas to be searched for evidence relevant to the homicide of Williams.

19 Id. at 277, 854 N.W.2d at 625.

20 Henderson, supra note 9.

21 Id.

22 Id. at 290, 854 N.W.2d at 633.

23 See id.
- 145 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. GOYNES

Cite as 303 Neb. 129

2. Good Faith Excep

[13] Because we conclude the affidavit contained sufficient 

facts to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search 

warrant, we need not address whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. An appellate court is not 

obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it.24

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we conclude the search warrant at issue was supported by probable cause and met the 

particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and article I, § 7. Accordingly, the district court did not err in declining to suppress evidence obtained through the execution of 

the warrant.

Affirmed

24 State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276, 900 N.W.2d 454 (2017).