Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Michael E. Goynes' convictions for first-degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The court held that the warrant authorizing the search of Goynes' cell phone was supported by probable cause and satisfied the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement. It also held that Goynes waived challenges to certain printed cell phone data by failing to specifically object when those exhibits were offered at trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the search warrant affidavit established probable cause to search the contents of Goynes' cell phone.
- Whether the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment and Nebraska Constitution's particularity requirement by sufficiently limiting the categories of cell phone data to be searched and seized.
- Whether Goynes preserved appellate challenges to printed cell phone data exhibits by failing to make timely and specific trial objections.
- Whether the court needed to address the State's good-faith-exception argument.
Holdings
- A party must make a timely and specific objection when evidence is offered at trial to preserve a suppression-related error for appellate review; failure to do so waives the objection even if the evidence was the subject of a prior motion to suppress.
- The warrant affidavit established probable cause to search Goynes' cell phone because, under the totality of the circumstances, it provided a substantial basis for finding a fair probability that evidence of the homicide would be found in the phone.
- The warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment and article I, § 7, particularity requirement because it identified the Williams homicide, specified the categories of cell phone data to be searched, and limited the search to content related to that investigation.
- The court did not need to decide whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the warrant was supported by probable cause and satisfied the particularity requirement.
Key quotations
“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.” (303 Neb. 138)
“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.” (303 Neb. 142)
“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.” (303 Neb. 142)
Factual background
Police responding to shots fired at an Omaha apartment complex found Barbara Williams fatally shot. Two witnesses identified Goynes as the shooter, and video and other accounts corroborated the presence and departure of a white sedan associated with the shooting. When arrested five days later, Goynes possessed an LG Tribute 5 cell phone. A detective obtained a warrant to search specified categories of data on the phone for evidence related to Williams' homicide.
Procedural history
After a county court issued a warrant authorizing a search of Goynes' cell phone, the district court denied his motion to suppress the resulting cell phone evidence. Goynes objected to the phone and compact disc at trial but did not specifically object to printed data exhibits, waiving appellate review of those printouts. A jury convicted him on all counts, and the district court imposed life imprisonment for murder and consecutive prison terms for the other offenses. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.