Whether the exigent circumstances exception saves a warrantless seizure of a defendant's phone

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the exigent circumstances exception saves a warrantless seizure of a defendant’s phone when law enforcement could have obtained a warrant and judges were available for such a purpose prior to contacting the defendant, had no reason to believe evidence would be destroyed but for law enforcement’s own action in confronting the defendant, allowed the defendant to manipulate and hold the phone unsupervised despite claiming a fear of imminent destruction of evidence, and thereafter held the property for three days without attempting to locate any evidence contained therein. 2. Whether a warrant which utilizes general language of “any and all other evidence related to a sexual abuse/exploitation investigation” is sufficiently particularized to allow seizure of electronics, or is instead an unconstitutional general warrant; whether law enforcement exceeded the scope of such a warrant when they seized electronics not described by the warrant; and whether the Leon exception may nevertheless apply to data upon electronic devices and save the otherwise defunct warrant when law enforcement subsequently utilized a warrant specific to the electronics and police policy and practice required a specific warrant for reviewing the contents of specific electronic devices.