convinced us that such a search is ever necessary to protect arresting officers or preserve destructible evidence.” Wurie, 728 F.3d at 13; see also, United States v. Dixon, 984 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1350-53, 2013 WL 6055396, at *4-*6 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 15, 2013) (finding federal agent’s extraction of data from the defendant’s cell phone, conducted in the agent’s office while the defendant was being booked at a different location, could not be justified as a warrantless search incident to an arrest, where the intrusion on the defendant’s privacy “involved much more than just a limited search for the phone’s log history or recent calls,” and where there was no “viable threat that the phone data could be remotely wiped or destroyed”); Schlossberg v. Solesbee, 844 F.Supp.2d 1165, 1170-71 (D.Ore.2012) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Quintana, 594 F.Supp.2d
holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search recognizing that a search incident to a lawful arrest permits a law enforcement officer to conduct a warrantless search of a container located in the area of the arrestees immediate control holding that the warrantless search of an electronic device such as the digital camera at issue in that case is not reasonable incident to a valid arrest absent a showing that the search was necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence to ensure officer safety or that other exigent circumstances exist footnote omitted holding warrantless search of motel room after occupant was arrested outside room for drug possession could not be justified as search incident to arrest absent other exigent circumstances