With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". unexplained by the court, directly contradicts United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir.2007), and United States v. Curtis, 635 F.3d 704 (5th Cir.2011), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 191, 181 L.Ed.2d 99 (2011). Finley held that no warrant is required for a search of an arrestee’s cell phone, including text messages and call records, incident to lawful arrest. 477 F.3d at 259-60. Officers arrested Finley at the scene of a traffic stop, searched his person and seized a cell phone from his pocket. Id. at 254. The officers retrieved call records and text messages in the search of Finley’s cell phone. Id. In Curtis, we relied on Finley to hold that an officer could search a defendant’s cell phone, including text messages, incident to his lawful arrest. 635 F.3d at 711-13 (<HOLDING>). 3. Finally, we consider whether the district

A: 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
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding a warrantless search of cell phone contents did not exceed permissible scope of search incident to arrest
A.