mr. dreeben?ecause given the variety of things these cell phones have is them, it seems that that's -- you know, it sounds good as amii limiting principle, but it ends up, you can imagine in every case, that the police could really look at everything. i'll give you an example. it's sort of like this case. somebody aarrested for a gun crime, and now we're going to look at all the various things that might be related to a gun crime, so whether he's bought guns, you know, whether he's done searches for gun stores, his e-mails might say something about gun possession or gun purchase. a he might have photographs of hie with a gun. you know, the whole range of things could relate to that crime, couldn't it? >> justice kagan, i wouldit acknowledge that your reasoning is correct. in certain circumstances and for certain crimes. it would not be the case for a jaywalking crime or a bar fight or many of the other minor crimes, seat belt violations, that are posited on the other side of the equation for the r