Search & seizure; “Probable cause” to track defendant’s phone & to search his apartments; Reasonableness of a vehicle stop; Consent to search a storage unit

The court held that the police had probable cause for the warrant to “ping” defendant-Sheckles’s phone where another drug dealer informed them that they were going to do a drug deal at a specified phone number. It also found no Fourth Amendment violation as to the other searches at issue. Sheckles pled guilty to five drug and firearm offenses, reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence. As to the search warrant to obtain his cell phone’s location data, the court held that there was probable cause where the officers learned that a known drug distributor was going to make a deal with a “Louisville distributor” at a certain phone number, and that “the phone’s location would likely yield useful evidence of criminal activity, including the distributor’s identity.” It held that this information provided a sufficient nexus between the phone’s location data and criminal activity to support a warrant. It also rejected Sheckles’s argument that because the drug deal had fallen through, there was no probable cause at the time his phone was pinged. There was still “a fair probability” that the phone pinging would reveal evidence of criminal activity after the warrant was issued. The court also held that the two warrants to search his apartments were supported by probable cause where they alleged that he was a drug dealer, and that the phone had pinged at the two apartments. Also, his vehicle was parked in one apartment’s specified spot, a complaint of suspected drug activity was made about the other apartment, and an officer smelled marijuana coming from that apartment. Further, case law supported the conclusion that “‘[i]n the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live.’” The court also upheld the Terry stop of Sheckles’s vehicle, concluding that the evidence the officers had “gave them at least a ‘particularized and objective basis’ to question Sheckles about his ongoing drug trafficking.” As to his claim “he had already been arrested when the officers found the handgun because they” had placed him in handcuffs, “handcuffing ‘does not affect the legitimacy of the Terry stop’ as long as the facts justify the precaution[,]” and the court held that the “officers could conclude that the facts warranted it here.” Finally, as to his challenge to the search of his storage unit, the court rejected his claim that his girlfriend was coerced into giving her consent, and noted that the unit’s rental agreement identified her as having authorized access to it. Affirmed.