and to specify the period of time during which the interception is authorized. 26 . See United States v. Figueroa, 757 F.2d 466, 472 (2d Cir.1985). 27 . Id. The Second Circuit has held that compliance with Title III amounts to compliance with the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112, 1121 (2d Cir.1993) ("Surveillance that is properly authorized and carried out under Title III complies with the fourth amendment.”). 28 . 18 U.S.C. § 2515. 29 . Id. § 2518(10)(a). 30 . United States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 527, 94 S.Ct. 1820, 40 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). 31 . 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). 32 . See id. at 357-59, 88 S.Ct. 507. 33 . Donovan, 429 U.S. at 436 n. 24, 97 S.Ct. 658. 34 . Cf. United States v. Duran, 189 F.3d 1071, 1085 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). 35 . In the context of traditional land
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 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 a wiretap orders failure to identify the electronic serial number on the interceptees new cell phone was not a warrantless search requiring suppression under katz holding a warrantless search of cell phone contents did not exceed permissible scope of search incident to arrest holding that finley authorizes a police officer to search the electronic contents of a cell phone recovered from the area within an arrestees immediate control