Controlled Buy, No-Knock Warrant, and iPhone Search
Detectives are investigating a fentanyl distribution operation out of Apartment 3B at 88 Morton Street. A confidential informant (CI) with two prior controlled buys tells Detective Byrne that a man known as 'Tito' sells from the apartment and keeps a Glock under the couch. The CI has provided reliable information in three prior cases, two of which led to convictions. Surveillance shows foot traffic consistent with drug sales. The CI makes a controlled buy: detectives search the CI, give marked bills, watch him enter the building, and recover two knotted baggies of suspected fentanyl and the marked bills from the CI afterward. The CI says Tito is armed and that there is a 'lookout' in the lobby. Detective Byrne wants a no-knock warrant to search the apartment and Tito's iPhone. The affidavit does not say how the CI knows about the Glock.
1. Does the affidavit establish probable cause? Apply the Massachusetts standard for informant information.
Read the worked answer
Massachusetts applies the Aguilar-Spinelli two-prong test: the affidavit must show the informant's basis of knowledge and veracity or reliability. The CI's controlled buy supplies both. Detectives searched the CI before and after, gave marked bills, watched him enter, and recovered the suspected fentanyl and marked bills. That corroborates the CI's account and reduces the chance of fabrication. The CI's three prior tips, two leading to convictions, also support reliability. The drug-distribution probable cause is strong. The Glock statement is weaker because the affidavit does not explain how the CI knows about the gun. A conclusory assertion that a suspect is armed is not enough by itself. The detective should add any independent facts, such as a prior firearms conviction, surveillance, or a statement against penal interest, or leave the firearm out of the probable-cause analysis for the search.
2. Should the judge authorize a no-knock entry? What must the affidavit show?
Read the worked answer
No-knock entry is the exception, not the default. Massachusetts requires the affidavit to show reasonable suspicion that knock-and-announce would be dangerous, futile, or would allow destruction of evidence. The CI's report of a Glock and a lobby lookout could support danger, but only if the affidavit explains the basis for that information and why it is reliable. As written, the gun claim is not supported by a stated basis, so the no-knock request is thin. The detective should also document the layout, the lookout's role, any prior weapons history, and why a ruse or delayed entry would not work. The judge, not the officer, authorizes no-knock. If the judge grants it, the entry team must still act reasonably and announce unless the authorization covers the entry. A no-knock warrant does not authorize destruction beyond what is necessary.
3. What particularity issues arise for the iPhone search?
Read the worked answer
The iPhone warrant must particularly describe the phone and the data to be searched. It should identify the phone by make, model, color, and location, and it should limit the search to categories relevant to the fentanyl distribution, such as text messages, call logs, contacts, photos, and location data, for a stated time period. A warrant that says 'search the phone' without limits risks being a general warrant. The affidavit should explain why the phone is likely to contain evidence and why the search will be conducted by a trained examiner using a search protocol. The officer must maintain chain of custody, document the phone's condition and any passcode, and return the warrant. If the examiner finds evidence outside the warrant's scope, they must stop and seek an additional warrant. Cloud data may require a separate warrant or legal process.