this case from Wyman by suggesting that "the County's program requires fraud investigators ... to detect and report evidence of welfare fraud and other crimes.” Dissent at 11532. This suggestion, however, simply does not square with the record. Project 100% does not affirmatively require that D.A. investigators look for evidence of welfare fraud or other crimes; rather, it is simply the duty of the investigators, as sworn peace officers, to report perceived evidence of unlawful activity. As Luis Aragon, the Chief of the D.A.'s Public Assistance Fraud Division, testified, the investigators are not tasked with "develop [ing] ... evidence ... that can be used in any other type 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (same); see also United States v. Gonzalez, 300 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Wyman, however, still controls this case
holding that warrantless searches of cell phones incident to arrest should not be allowed because such searches cannot be justified by officer safety or the preservation of evidence given the privacy implications inherent in cell phone data searches holding that consensual random drug testing of students participating in extracurricular activities were searches under the fourth amendment even though they were not part of a criminal investigation and a positive test resulted only in suspension from participation holding a person may consent to warrantless searches as a condition of a suspended sentence holding that consensual suspicionless searches of government employees personal belongings in the workplace were searches even though refusal to consent carried no criminal penalty and the searches were not for law enforcement purposes holding that consent searches do not require probable cause to justify the search of a home