in the second case, brima wurie was arrested after police observed him participate in an apparent drug sale. at the police station, the officers seized two cell phones from wurie's person, including the "flip phone" at issue in this case. shortly after arriving at the station, police noticed that the phone was receiving multiple calls from a source identified as “my house” on the phone's external screen. the officers opened the phone, accessed its call log, determined the number associated with the “my house” label, and traced that number to what they suspected was wurie's apartment. they secured a search warrant for the location and, during the ensuing search, found 215 grams of crack cocaine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a firearm, ammunition, and cash. wurie was subsequently charged with drug and firearm offenses. he moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of the apartment, but the district court denied the motion, and wurie was convicted. a divided panel of the first circuit reversed the denial of the motion to suppress and vacated the relevant convictions. the court held that cell phones are distinct from other physical possessions that may be searched incident to arrest without a warrant because of the amount of personal data cell phones contain and the negligible threat they pose to law enforcement interests.