To the extent that the government has cited cases holding otherwise, I disagree with the conclusions of those courts. See. United States v. Young, 2006 WL 1302667, at * 12-13 (N. D. W. Va. May 9, 2006) (exigent circumstances justified search because text messages and numbers stored in memory could be deleted by incoming calls); United States v. Zamora, 2006 WL 418390 (N. D. Ga. Feb. 21, 2006) (same); United States v. Parada, 289 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (D. Kan. 2003) (same).Dennis Dinwiddie Motions
rts have upheld the search of cell phones for similar information. See, e.g., United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250, 259-60 (5th Cir.),cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2065 (2007) (denying motion to suppress call records and text messages retrieved from cell phone searched incident to arrest); United States v. Mercado-Nava, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1278-79 (D. Kan. 2007) (collecting cases upholding cell phone searches incident to arrest); United States v. Cote, No. 03CR271, 2005 WL 1323343, at *6 (N.D. Ill. May 26, 2005) (upholding seizure of the defendant's cell phone incident to arrest and accessing of the phone's call log, phone book and wireless web inbox);see also United States v. Dennis, No. 07-008, 2007 WL 3400500, at *7 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 13, 2007) (relying on Finley to uphold cell phone search incident to arrest); United States v. Lottie, No. 3:07-cr-51, 2007 WL 4722439, at *2-4 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 12, 2007 (upholding search of cell phone incident to arrest and based on exigent circumstances); United States v. Young, Nos. 5:05CR63-01-02, 2006 WL 1302667, at *13 (N.D. W. Va. May 9, 2006) (upholding search of cell phone where evidence showed that numbers could be erased or lost when phone was de-activated). In his recommendation, the magistrate judge cited other cases upholding cell phone searches.