Should the Carpenter decision on CSLI extend to digital devices?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW : Question 1 : This court has recently decided on a case of nation-wide importance. In Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), this Court held that “an individual maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements as captured through [Cell Site Location Information, or] CSLI.” Furthermore, it was stated that “As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his . particular movements, but through them his “familial, political, religious, and sexual associations.” (The later quote being the opinion of Sotomayor, J. citing United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 [2012]).” Thus, I present the following two-tiered question for your clarification: Qla. Should this Court’s Carpenter decision on the amount of data collected from CSLI equate and extend to the amount of data collected from all digital devices? Qlb. Does an individual maintain a legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his digital movements through digital data collection methods? : Question 2 In recent years, there have been several cases decided by this court that could be viewed ° as “landmark” cases in the way that they discuss the search and seizure of electronic devices. However, many cases in the lower courts involve improper applications of particularity for searching digital devices, resulting in general, exploratory searches. Noting that some of these cases had no clear focus or limiting instructions for the search of the devices, or that the affidavits for said devices make vague connections between the crime and the devices, I ask the following: Q2a. Have 4 Amendment rights eroded across the country due to these types of general, exploratory searches? ' Q2b. Should this Court order the lower courts to examine and revise their standards for : particularity and specificity with regards to the search of a digital device?