cell phone may be conducted without a warrant. See, e.g., United States v. Martin, No. 07-CR-20605-1, 2013 WL 55693, at *4-5 (E.D.Mich. Jan. 3, 2013) (rejecting arrestee’s contention that the officers who arrested him unlawfully searched the contact list on his cell phone, and recognizing the manifest need to preserve evidence as justification for an officer’s retrieval of certain information from a cell phone seized incident to an arrest); United States v. Slaton, No. 5:11-131, 2012 WL 2374241, at *8-9 (E.D.Ky. June 22, 2012) (upholding search of cell phone including text messages, because the search occurred at the time and the place of arrest). In addition, several state supreme courts have allowed a search of at least some of the digital con 5945802, at *14 (D.Vt. Nov. 6, 2013) (<HOLDING>); United States v. DiMarco, No. 12 CR 205 RPP,
holding seizure of arrestees cell phone lawful but finding the fourth amendment requires a warrant to perform a forensic search of the lawfully seized cell phone holding that while law enforcement officers properly separated and assumed possession of a cell phone from arrestees person during the search incident to arrest a warrant was required before the information data and content of the cell phone could be accessed and searched by law enforcement recognizing that a modern cell phone is a computer and not just another purse or address book so that the potential invasion of privacy in a search of a cell phone is greater than in a search of a container in a conventional sense holding a warrantless search of cell phone contents did not exceed permissible scope of search incident to arrest holding that the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest includes the contents of a cell phone found on the arrestees person