Cellphone / Wireless Device

Art. 18.02(a)(14) & 18.0215 — device extraction (locked or unlocked, non-consent)

Part of the Warrant Path template library. Templates last updated 2026-09-20 — what that date does and doesn’t mean.

What this covers

Authorizes a non-consent forensic search and seizure of a specific cellphone or wireless device already in law enforcement custody, covering the device's on-board data across five defined categories rather than an 'all data' request.

Property / data categories

• Identifying data — IMEI/IMSI/MAC address/SIM/serial number, associated user profiles and accounts, connected-device identifiers
• Communications data — contacts, call logs, text message logs, third-party app messages, email, social media activity
• Application data — web/search history, calendar and notes, health and fitness data, financial/banking information, personal file storage
• Media data — images, videos, and audio recordings with their metadata
• System data — OS and hardware info, GPS location data, network/cell-site connection info, app usage records, user preferences
• System data (cont.) — file system info, databases, passwords/keychains/encryption keys, data marked for deletion or overwriting, log files

Controlling authority

• Art. 18.01(b) — No warrant may issue without a sworn affidavit setting out substantial facts establishing probable cause.
• Art. 18.0215(b) — The warrant must issue from a judge in the district where the device is located or the requesting agency is based (jurisdictional-district recital).
• Art. 18.02(a)(14) & 18.0215 — The specific grounds authorizing a cellphone/wireless-device warrant.
• Art. 18.01(c) — Particularity requirement — satisfied here by the five bounded data categories instead of an 'all data' request.
• Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) — Requires an independent, case-specific basis before seeking location/CSLI-type data.
• Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) — A warrant is required to search a phone's digital contents even incident to arrest — the baseline this template assumes.
• State v. Baldwin, No. PD-0027-21 (Tex. Crim. App. May 11, 2022) — Boilerplate about cell phones generally being used to commit or plan crimes cannot by itself establish probable cause — the affidavit must couple that boilerplate with case-specific facts and reasonable inferences tying THIS device to THIS offense.
• SWGDE Best Practices for Computer/Mobile Forensic Acquisitions — Standard for the write-blocking, imaging, and hashing methodology in the Forensic Examination Protocol section — not itself binding law, but the recognized professional standard the section is grounded in.

Common defects to check for before filing

• Relying on generic 'cell phones are commonly used to commit crimes' boilerplate as the entire nexus showing, instead of case-specific facts tying this device to this offense (State v. Baldwin, 2022)
• Treating the 3-day return deadline (Art. 18.07(a)/18.10) as also covering completion of forensic examination — the Forensic Examination Protocol section addresses this, but confirm the framing with your prosecutor since Chapter 18 has no express seize-now/examine-later provision like Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)(2)(B)
• Overbroad scope — collapsing the five-category structure back into an 'all data' request
• Missing the jurisdictional-district recital required by Art. 18.0215(b)
• Requesting location data without the independent Carpenter-driven showing
• Treating passcode/biometric compulsion as part of this warrant instead of a separate request
• Device description mismatch between the affidavit, warrant, and return/inventory

← Back to the full template library  ·  About  ·  FAQ  ·  Privacy  ·  Terms of use