of a pager's electronic memory, incoming pages may destroy currently stored telephone numbers in a pager's memory," and "[t]hus, it is imperative that law enforcement officers have the authority to immediately `search' or retrieve, incident to a valid arrest, information from a pager in order to prevent its destruction as evidence."), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 900 (1996); United States v. Meriwether, 917 F.2d 955, 958 (6th Cir. 1990) (upholding the seizure of the defendant's telephone number from a pager as within the scope of a warrant that authorized agents to search for and seize "telephone numbers of customers, suppliers, couriers," while noting that "[t]he digital display pager, by its very nature, is nothing more than a contemporary receptacle for telephone numbers."); United States v. Dennis, Criminal No. 07-008-DLB, 2007 WL 3400500, at **7-8 (E.D.Ky. Nov. 13, 2007) (upholding warrantless search of a defendant's cellular telephone call history log as a search incident to arrest); United States v. Diaz, No. CR 05-0167, 2006 WL 3193770, at **2, 4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2006) (upholding warrantless retrieval of information from the defendant's cellular telephone, including the officer turning the cellular telephone on, writing down names and phone numbers in the cell phone's address book, because the cellular telephone was searched incident to the defendant's booking, because of the defendant's status as a probationer, and because of the limited life of a cellular telephone's battery which could block access to the information later); United States v. Allen, No. 3:04cr123, 2005 WL 5574429, at **3, 6 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2005) (holding that warrantless retrieval of information from defendants' five cellular telephones, including dates and times of numbers called, the dates and times of calls received, and the names and phone numbers inside the address books of each cellular telephone was justified by exigent circumstances, because one of the cellular telephones had rung at least 40 times, and the memory of a cellular telephone is limited). ANALYSIS
The Court is not persuaded by Martinovich's rote recitation of other legitimate purposes of a booking search because, as discussed above, those legitimate interests have no applicability to a cell phone search. The government cites United States v. Diaz, 2006 WL 319770 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2006) (Alsup, J.). In that case, Judge Alsup upheld a stationhouse search of a cell phone on the grounds that it was incident to booking and also authorized under the defendant's probationary search condition.