requirement], a police officer, incident to an arrest, may search a person.” Lavicky v. Burnett, 758 F.2d 468, 474 (10th Cir.1985). Because Coxy and Megan’s warrantless arrests were constitutionally permissible, so too were the contemporaneous searches of their persons for weapons and evidence. See id. Further, the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest includes the contents of a cell phone found on the axrestee’s person. United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250, 260 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1353, 127 S.Ct. 2065, 167 L.Ed.2d 790 (2007); see also United States v. Ortiz, 84 F.3d 977, 983-84 (7th Cir.1996) (upholding officer’s scan of messages in digital pager as valid search incident to arrest); see generally United States v. Donnes, 947 F.2d 1430, 1437 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Next, we turn to Silvan and Alanna’s claim
holding that a search incident to a lawful arrest does not violate the fourth amendment holding that search of golf bag was not legal as search incident to arrest because it was not in passenger compartment of vehicle or otherwise within arrestees immediate control holding that a lawful custodial arrest is a prerequisite to a search since the arrest is the authority of law justifying the 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 an officer may search a suspects vehicle incident to a lawful arrest