“The fact that the warrant authorized law enforcement agents to access all the data on the phone does not automatically render it overbroad.” Moreover, defendant doesn’t suggest that the good faith exception does not apply. United States v. Dawkins, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91534 (S.D. N.Y. June 1, 2019):
All of these requirements were met in the warrants for Defendants’ phones. The warrants described the target crimes, identified the phones as the items to be searched, and specified the types of data that would be seized from the phones, data that was also identified in the affidavit as being particularly related to the target crimes. The fact that the warrant authorized law enforcement agents to access all the data on the phone does not automatically render it overbroad. As the Second Circuit has acknowledged, “it will often be impossible to identify in advance the words or phrases that will separate relevant files or documents before the search takes place, because officers cannot readily anticipate how a suspect will store information related to the charged crimes.” Id. at 102. Thus, “[b]y necessity, government efforts to locate particular files will require examining a great many other files to exclude the possibility that the sought-after data are concealed there.” United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436, 447 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d 1162, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (per curiam)) (alteration in original). Accordingly, the warrants granted to search Defendants’ phones were not overbroad.