Whether the warrantless search and seizure of a cell phone's digital contents and location information by a private citizen debt collector violates the Fourth Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court’s unanimous decision in Riley v. California 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) -held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional. This Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States 138 S. CT. 2206 (2018) held that a warrant is required for police to access cell site location information from a cell phone company. Without warrants, the above searches and seizures constitute violations of Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The trial court ordered the enforcement of a subpoena issued by a private citizen debt collector and served on Petitioner’s cell phone company to search and seize the digital content (including cell site location information) related to Petitioner's cell phone. Simultaneously, the trial court entered an order granting the private citizen the authority to disclose third parties any document obtained from the cell phone company. Upon requests for review, the state appellate court denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus followed by the state supreme court denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, in holding that a private citizen can lawfully search and seize the digital contents of a cell phone without a warrant, the state supreme court decision directly conflicts with this Court’s decisions in Riley and Carpenter. 2. Whether the state supreme court’s denial of the petition for writ of mandamus was arbitrary and capricious. ii