Agents who were investigating six armed robberies in Maryland received from the court an order giving them access to 221 days of Sprint/Nextel records showing where the defendants’ phones were. To get it, the agents had to show the requested records were relevant and material to the continuing investigation. The defendants challenged their convictions, claiming the agents should have obtained a warrant. A warrant would require a higher standard for the agents to meet, that there was a fair probability that the records sought would lead to evidence of a crime. Should a warrant have been obtained? Explain why.