I. In this case, the district court denied Petitioner's pre-trial motion to suppress numerous photos and social media seized from his cell phone in an examination by a government agent carried out pursuant to a search warrant. The photos and social media were used by prosecutors at trial as evidence to prove Petitioner's role in a neighborhood street gang charged as a RICO enterprise. The agent's affidavit in support of his application for the search warrant contained no information that the cell phone had ever been used by Petitioner or by anyone. The district court instead relied on the agent's opinions that Petitioner was a gang member and that gang members use cell phones to communicate about gang criminal operations. A unanimous panel of the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

The lower courts' decisions in this case are contrary to the rules in Riley v. California, 134 S Ct 2473, 2484 (2014), which requires law enforcement officers to get a warrant based on probable cause before searching the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest, and Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 US 547 (1978), that requires a search warrant to be based on probable cause to believe that "the specific "things" to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought;" Id. at 556. The lower courts' rulings eliminate the Zurcher requirement in the case of a cell phone examination search warrant and permit unlimited searches of cell phones seized incident to any arrest because, as this Court has recognized, a significant majority of the population regularly use cell phones for communications and to store the privacies of their lives. Riley, at 2484. These decisions join a division among lower courts on this important issue.

Whether an application for a search warrant to examine the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest must show more to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the cell phone than only an opinion that criminal gang members commonly use cell phones to communicate about their plans?

II. Whether the § 924(c) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague?

Whether an application for a search warrant to examine the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest must show more to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the cell phone than only an opinion that criminal gang members commonly use cell phones to communicate about their plans?