Page:United States v. Morton (19-10842) (2021) Opinion.pdf/5

 found in the place to be searched for there to be probable cause. ''Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding'', 557 U.S. 364, 371 (2009) (cleaned up).

Here, as suggested by this court’s precedent, we turn to Trooper Blue’s affidavits supporting the search warrants. The affidavits seek approval to search Morton’s contacts, call logs, text messages, and photographs for evidence of his drug possession crimes. As the government properly conceded at oral argument, separate probable cause is required to search each of the categories of information found on the cellphones. Although “[t]reating a cell phone as a container … is a bit strained,” the Supreme Court has explained that cellphones do “collect[] in one place many distinct types of information.” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 394, 397 (2014). And the Court’s opinion in Riley went to great lengths to explain the range of possible types of information contained on cellphones.

Riley made clear that these distinct types of information, often stored in different components of the phone, should be analyzed separately. This requirement is imposed because “a cell phone’s capacity allows even just one