Stocker, Jamin Kidron (02/26/2026)

Police searched Stocker’s cell phone with a warrant and recovered data and evidence that Stocker moved to suppress. The trial court denied the motion and he was convicted. On appeal (and after an interlude in the Court of Criminal Appeals), Stocker claimed that the warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause and Baldwin’s required nexus.

The affidavit detailed that: 

• a deputy constable was shot at a traffic stop, and seconds afterward, video surveillance captured someone running with a long gun along a bike trail;
• a spent .22 caliber bullet was recovered but no shell casings;
• in the prior year, four other unsolved shootings involving absent .22 caliber casings occurred in a 2-mile radius of the deputy-constable’s shooting;
• three of the prior incidents involved the long-distance shooting of an officer;
• an anonymous tip reported that the deputy constable’s shooter was named “Jamin,” gave the man’s cell phone number, and said that he owned a long gun with a shell catcher and was an “local activist who did not like law enforcement”;
• about a year later, a homeless man saw a man fire at him from his apartment balcony, identified the balcony (an address associated with Stocker), and ultimately identified Stocker as his shooter;
• a search of the balcony apartment (which was also within a 2.3 mile radius of all the other shootings, including the deputy constable’s) uncovered a .22 caliber rifle with a shell catcher and lots of ammunition;
• Stocker was arrested for the homeless man’s shooting and his cell phone was seized;
• Stocker shared the same first name and cell phone number as the “Jamin” in the anonymous report.

The affiant said he believed the shell catcher explained why no shell casings had been recovered and asked to “download” Stocker’s phone to search for electronic data related to the deputy constable’s and homeless man’s shootings.

The court of appeals held there was probable cause and a sufficient Baldwin nexus to search the phone. Specifically, there was reason to believe Stocker had used the phone to communicate about the deputy constable’s shooting given that the tipster identified Stocker as the shooter, knew facts (like his grudge against officers and having a shell catcher) that had special relevance for these offenses, and provided Stocker’s cell number. Given this corroboration, the magistrate could have inferred that the tipster and Stocker communicated with each other through Stocker’s phone and that their communications would be found there. Because his cell phone was not found in the search of his residence and had been in his possession when arrested, it was reasonable to infer that Stocker kept his phone with him. Given the links between Stocker and the deputy constable’s and homeless man’s shootings (and common knowledge that smart phones record and store location data), there was also a likelihood that a search of Stocker’s location data would reveal a pattern of movement that aligned with the time and place of these crimes (as well the other similar unsolved shootings).

Stocker argues that the affidavit could not support probable cause because the tip lacked indicia of reliability, had not been corroborated, and failed to indicate the source of the tipster’s knowledge. Stocker characterizes the court’s nexus analysis as “wildly speculating” since the tipster never claimed that he communicated with Stocker by phone or social media. And he contrasts the lack of credibility and specificity in the allegations here with the facts of the cases the court of appeals relied on.  Stocker also contends that by parroting language from the statute for accessing data from a service provider (i.e., probable cause that the data sought will show that “a particular person committed that offense”) instead of the statute for accessing data from a device, the court of appeals has confused the analyses.