With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". convinced us that such a search is ever necessary to protect arresting officers or preserve destructible evidence.” Wurie, 728 F.3d at 13; see also, United States v. Dixon, 984 F.Supp.2d 1347, 1350-53, 2013 WL 6055396, at *4-*6 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 15, 2013) (finding federal agent’s extraction of data from the defendant’s cell phone, conducted in the agent’s office while the defendant was being booked at a different location, could not be justified as a warrantless search incident to an arrest, where the intrusion on the defendant’s privacy “involved much more than just a limited search for the phone’s log history or recent calls,” and where there was no “viable threat that the phone data could be remotely wiped or destroyed”); Schlossberg v. Solesbee, 844 F.Supp.2d 1165, 1170-71 (D.Ore.2012) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Quintana, 594 F.Supp.2d

A: 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
B: holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant
C: holding that the warrantless search of an electronic device such as the digital camera at issue in that case is not reasonable incident to a valid arrest absent a showing that the search was necessary to prevent the destruction of evidence to ensure officer safety or that other exigent circumstances exist footnote omitted
D: holding that while search incident to arrest could not justify search in that case probable cause plus exigency justified search
C.