Whether a warrant that authorizes police to seize a smart phone and search it for 'all electronic data' is invalid because it is insufficiently particular

QUESTION PRESENTED L In Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), this Court clarified Fourth Amendment protections for the contents of cell phones seized incident to arrest. Analogizing to homes and containers, this Court recognized that the search of a cell phone could reveal "a broad array of private information" even beyond what a search of a home could reveal. Jd. at 393. The solution, this Court held, is "simple — get a warrant." Id. The application of traditional warrant principles — including and especially particularity — to cell phones, however, has split the lower courts in the intervening years. After Riley, police frequently request and obtain warrants that allow a blanket search of the phone, without limitation as to: the type of information, its location within the phone, timeframe, or nexus to a suspected crime. Some courts have held that such warrants fail for lack of particularity, because a warrant must describe at least the category or type of information sought on the phone. Other courts do not require any particularized description of what is sought on the phone. Here, the Fourth Circuit joined those courts, and upheld a warrant that authorized search and seizure of "all electronic data" on the phone, without limitation as to type of information, location on the phone, timeframe, nexus, or otherwise. The question presented therefore is whether a warrant that authorizes police to seize a smart phone and search it for "all electronic data" is invalid because it is insufficiently particular. -i