Opinion ID: 2743343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Search of Cell Phone

Text: Dave Schneider was one of the homicide detectives from the Omaha Police Department (OPD) assigned to investigate the shootings. One of Schneider’s duties was to obtain a search warrant for a cell phone that was among the items of personal property taken from Henderson upon his arrest. Schneider himself had not come into contact with the cell phone, but he knew that other officers had turned the cell phone on to obtain its serial number and telephone number. Schneider testified that the other officers had placed the cell phone into “airplane mode” so that the cell phone could not be remotely accessed for the purpose of deleting data. Schneider prepared an affidavit and application for issuance of a warrant to search the contents of the cell phone. In the affidavit and application, Schneider generally requested a warrant to search “[a]ny and Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. HENDERSON 277 Cite as 289 Neb. 271 all information” contained on the cell phone. He specifically listed contacts, cell phone call lists, text messages, and voicemails, and he also requested “any other information that can be gained from the internal components and/or memory Cards.” As grounds for the issuance of the warrant, Schneider asserted that Henderson was a suspect in a shooting and that the cell phone was in Henderson’s possession when he was arrested. The county court for Douglas County issued the requested search warrant on February 18, 2012. The search of the cell phone was conducted by another detective, Nick Herfordt, during the afternoon of February 18, 2012. Herfordt downloaded information from the cell phone, including the contact list, call history, and text messages. Included in the information downloaded was a series of text messages exchanged between the cell phone and another number between 2:34 a.m. and 3:11 a.m. on February 18. Messages coming from the other number included two which stated, “That Nigga that stab Jb up here” and “After hour on harney downtown.” Messages sent from the searched cell phone included two which stated, “On my way keep close eye” and “Im out side wat up?” Other messages appear to indicate that the two persons exchanging the messages were attempting to meet up with one another outside the location mentioned in earlier messages. Herfordt also found a picture that was used as “wallpaper,” or the background on the cell phone’s screen. The picture depicted a man, and at trial, witnesses identified the man in the picture as Levering. Prior to trial, on June 13, 2012, Henderson filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of the cell phone. He asserted, inter alia, that the affidavit supporting the request for the search warrant “did not contain sufficient information to establish probable cause to believe a crime or evidence of a crime would be found on [Henderson’s] cellular telephone.” The district court held a hearing on the motion to suppress on August 16. However, before the court ruled on the motion to suppress, Schneider obtained a second warrant to search the cell phone. The affidavit Schneider submitted to the county court in support of the second warrant included the same information Nebraska Advance Sheets 278 289 NEBRASKA REPORTS that had been included in the request for the first warrant, but there was additional language stating: In Affiant Officers [sic] experience and training as a detective it is known that suspects that we have had contact with use cell phones to communicate about shootings that they have been involved it [sic], before, during, and afterwards. The communication can be though [sic] voice, text, and social media, to name a few. The county court issued a second search warrant based on the new affidavit on September 14. On September 20, Herfordt searched the contents of the cell phone a second time. On November 13, 2012, Henderson filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the second search of the cell phone, and the district court held a hearing on the motion on November 19. The court entered an order on January 17, 2013, overruling Henderson’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the second search. The court agreed with Henderson’s argument that the affidavit submitted in support of the first search warrant issued on February 18, 2012, did not sufficiently state why a search of the cell phone would produce evidence relevant to the crimes for which Henderson was arrested and that therefore, there was not probable cause to support the first search warrant. But the court continued that no warrant was necessary because, in its view, the search of the cell phone, which was found on Henderson at the time of his arrest, was a valid warrantless search incident to his arrest. The court stated that because no warrant was needed to conduct the search, issues regarding the validity of the second search warrant were moot. Notwithstanding its conclusion that a warrant was not required, the district court addressed the warrant issue “in the event it is eventually determined that the Court is in error on that issue” regarding the need for a warrant. The court rejected Henderson’s argument that the second warrant was an attempt to rehabilitate the deficiencies of the first warrant and that the second warrant was tainted by the execution of the first warrant. The court concluded that “there is little or no evidence that ‘but for’ the execution of the first search warrant the State Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. HENDERSON 279 Cite as 289 Neb. 271 would not have searched the cellular telephone using the properly issued second search warrant.” After Henderson filed a motion to reconsider the ruling on the motion to suppress, the court held another hearing focused on the validity of the second search warrant. On February 7, 2013, the court entered an order overruling the motion to reconsider and suppress evidence obtained from the second search. In the order, the court specifically determined that the affidavit offered in support of the second search warrant, which included the additional language quoted above, established probable cause to search the cell phone. The court concluded that the second search warrant was properly issued and executed.