Not too long ago, it was rare for decisions by federal magistrate judges to garner much attention.  That has certainly changed in recent months, as magistrates vie to become the progenitors of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence governing searches of email accounts, cell phones, and computers.  The problem is that these would-be Marshalls and Brandeises are reaching diametrically opposite conclusions.  This puts both law enforcement and recipients of warrants for electronic evidence in the uncomfortable position of not knowing what the law is on legal questions that were once considered routine.  Recent decisions from magistrates in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (In the Matter of the Search of premises known as:  A NEXTEL Cellular Telephone with [redacted] (Unknown Assigned Telephone Number) Belonging to and Seized from [redacted]) and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (In the Matter of a Warrant for All Content and Other Information Associated with the Email Account xxxxxxx@gmail.com Maintained at Premises Controlled by Google, Inc.) show that this debate over fundamental questions is far from over.  The case from Kansas also shows that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Riley v. California is beginning to have an impact on a wide range of Fourth Amendment issues.