Whether an application for a search warrant to examine the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest must show more to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the cell phone than only an opinion that criminal gang members commonly use cell phones to communicate about their plans?

Question Presented is: Whether an application for a search warrant to examine the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest must show more to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the cell phone than only an opinion that criminal gang members commonly use cell phones to communicate about their plans? I. Petitioner was sentenced to a total term of 30 years custody, 25 years for RICO conspiracy and a mandatory consecutive 5 years for possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence pursuant to the language of 18 USC §924(c), defining crimes of violence. This Court has recently found the same language, appearing in 18 USC §16, unconstitutionally vague in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S Ct 1204 (2018). -i The Question presented is: Whether the § 924(c) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague? -ii