Portal:United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

“ Here, this observation means that the facts as alleged in Trooper Blue’s affidavits must raise a “fair probability” or a “substantial chance” that evidence relevant to Morton’s crime—that is, simple drug possession—will be found in each place to be searched: his contacts, his call logs, his text messages, and his photographs. There must be a specific factual basis in the affidavit that connects each cellphone feature to be searched to the drug possession crimes with which Morton was initially charged. ”

“ There’s not a single case, based just on training and experience, plus cellphones, plus user-quantity drugs, that you get to get to everything in the phone.”) . And a Tenth Circuit decision similarly addresses the issues here: after arresting a defendant for drug crimes, officers applied for and received a warrant to search his computers for files containing “names, telephone numbers, ledger receipts, addresses, and other documentary evidence” of drug offenses. United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268, 1270 (10th Cir. 1999) . ”

“ Since this is true of drug possession suspects in general, and Morton had been found with drugs, Trooper Blue credibly alleges that there is a “fair probability” that these features of Morton’s phone would contain similar evidence of Morton’s drug possession charges.
These conclusions are supported by simple logic. To possess drugs, one must have purchased them ”

“ See, e.g., Adam M. Gershowitz, The Post-Riley Search Warrant: Search Protocols and Particularity in Cell Phone Searches, 69 Vand. L. Rev. 585, 597–600 (2016) ; id. at 609 (noting that in drug cases, warrants frequently “authorize searches for photos and videos [on phones] ... for which there is typically no probable cause”) ; Andrew D. Huynh, Note, What Comes After “Get A Warrant”: Balancing Particularity and Practicality in Mobile Device Search Warrants Post-Riley, 101 Cornell L. Rev. ”