Whether the search warrant was constitutionally overbroad in authorizing the seizure of 'any cellphones' in the house when officers had no reason to believe that cellphones were used during the road rage incident and when the warrant affidavit made no mention of cellphones

QUESTION PRESENTED This case emerged out of a road rage incident during which shots were fired. The suspect, Omil Cotto, fled the scene in a red Camaro. Officers executed a search warrant on a residence (the Apodaca Street house) based on the fact that a red Camato was patked in front of the house and Mr. Cotto was arrested there while he was a passenger in another vehicle. The search warrant authorized officers to search for two classes of items: firearms and cell phones. Mr. Cotto did not live in the Apodaca Street house. Was the warrant constitutionally overbroad in authorizing the seizure of “any cellphones” in the house when officers no had reason to believe that cellphones were used during the road rage incident and when the warrant affidavit made no mention of cellphones? i