Whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule can save a cloud search warrant unsupported by probable cause and devoid of particularity

QUESTION PRESENTED To stretch a warrant for the search of a cellphone to cover the search of a cloud account “would be like finding a key in a suspect’s pocket and arguing that it allowed law enforcement to unlock and search a house.” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 397 (2014). But that is precisely what occurred here. Law enforcement officers regurgitated the facts and observations that supported a cellphone search warrant and included one additional, conclusory, bare bones assertion—that the investigating detective “knows from law enforcement training and experience that criminal activity is often planned prior to the act”—in order to “unlock and search” the entirety of the cloud account associated with the cellphone at issue, unbounded by any subject matter limitations or dates. Riley, 573 U.S. at 397. Given the depth, breadth, and volume of data stored in the cloud, such an unrestrained search exposes even more than the most exhaustive search of a house ever could. Such an unwarranted and unprecedented expansion of the government’s power to pry into the lives of private citizens cannot be countenanced. The continued viability of the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and particularity requirements depend upon this Court’s immediate intervention. The question presented is: 1. Whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule can save a cloud search warrant unsupported by probable cause and devoid of particularity. i