Good decision.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34434516/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
QuoteOhio court: Cell phone searches require warrant
'Wealth of digital information' stored on devices cited; ACLU hails decision
updated 1:08 p.m. PT, Tues., Dec . 15, 2009
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Police officers must obtain a search warrant before scouring the contents of a suspect's cell phone unless their safety is in danger, a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled Tuesday on an issue that appears never to have reached another state high court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Ohio high court ruled 5-4 in favor of Antwaun Smith, who was arrested on drug charges after he answered a cell phone call from a crack cocaine user acting as a police informant.
Officers took Smith's cell phone when he was arrested and, acting without a warrant and without his consent, searched it. They found a call history and stored numbers that showed Smith had previously been in contact with the drug user.
Smith was charged with cocaine possession, cocaine trafficking, tampering with evidence and two counts of possession of criminal tools.
During his trial, Smith argued that the evidence obtained through the cell phone search was inadmissible because it violated the constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure.
The trial court admitted the call records and phone numbers, citing a 2007 federal court decision that found that a cell phone is similar to a closed container found on a suspect and therefore subject to search without a warrant. Smith was convicted of all charges and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
A state appeals court upheld the trial judge's ruling in a 2-1 decision. The dissenting judge based his opposition on a different federal court case, which found that a cell phone is not a "container" as the term had been used previously.
No U.S. high court precedent
Writing for the majority in Tuesday's ruling, Supreme Court Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger said the only case law available to guide the court appeared to be the conflicting federal court decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't taken up the issue and there appeared to be no decisions from top-level state courts on the matter, she wrote.
Lanzinger said the majority didn't agree with the state's argument that a cell phone was akin to a closed container.
"We do not agree with this comparison, which ignores the unique nature of cell phones," Lanzinger wrote. "Objects falling under the banner of 'closed container' have traditionally been physical objects capable of holding other physical objects. ... Even the more basic models of modern cell phones are capable of storing a wealth of digitized information wholly unlike any physical object found within a closed container."
Stephen Haller, a Greene County prosecutor, said the court created a new section of law pertaining to cell phones. He said he will decide within two weeks whether to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
'Razor-thin' decision
"I'm disappointed with this razor-thin 4-3 decision," Haller said. "The majority here has announced this broad, sweeping new Fourth Amendment rule that basically is at odds with decisions of other courts."
Smith's attorney and the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, which described Tuesday's ruling as a landmark case, said the law needs to account for technological advances.
"People keep their e-mail, text messages, personal and work schedules, pictures, and so much more on their cell phones," Craig Jaquith, Smith's attorney, said in a statement. "I can't imagine that any cell phone user in Ohio would want the police to have access to that sort of personal information without a warrant. Today, the Ohio Supreme Court properly brought the Fourth Amendment into the 21st century."
Justice Robert R. Cupp wrote the dissenting opinion. He argued that the contents of a cell phone are similar to a traditional address book and therefore open to search without a warrant when obtained during an arrest. He said the majority "needlessly theorized" about what a cell phone is capable of doing and the data it can store.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Not sure why this is such big news. Modern cell phones have data functions very similar to most laptops, and no judge would be stupid enough to say that the police don't need a warrant to pull data from a laptop carried by a suspect.
This is why I love the fact that parolees give up their right to unlawful search and seizure when they leave prison. It makes my job so much less of a headache. :D
QuoteStephen Haller, a Greene County prosecutor, said the court created a new section of law pertaining to cell phones. He said he will decide within two weeks whether to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
'Razor-thin' decision
"I'm disappointed with this razor-thin 4-3 decision," Haller said. "The majority here has announced this broad, sweeping new Fourth Amendment rule that basically is at odds with decisions of other courts."
As an elected official, he isn't that bad.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 15, 2009, 11:44:57 PM
Not sure why this is such big news. Modern cell phones have data functions very similar to most laptops, and no judge would be stupid enough to say that the police don't need a warrant to pull data from a laptop carried by a suspect.
It's news because of this bit:
Quotethe only case law available to guide the court appeared to be the conflicting federal court decisions
Some federal courts have allowed this kind of crap.
Not sure how I feel about this. All they did was look through his call history on his cellphone (which I assume was on him when he was arrested) *after* he was arrested. To me it looks like they had probable cause.
What am I missing?
Quote from: derspiess on December 17, 2009, 08:48:41 PM
Not sure how I feel about this. All they did was look through his call history on his cellphone (which I assume was on him when he was arrested) *after* he was arrested. To me it looks like they had probable cause.
What am I missing?
Nothing, really. Yeah, they had probable cause--so they should have gotten a warrant. Just like they would normally have probable cause to search someone's house after arrest, but they should bet a warrant first.
Quote from: derspiess on December 17, 2009, 08:48:41 PM
Not sure how I feel about this. All they did was look through his call history on his cellphone (which I assume was on him when he was arrested) *after* he was arrested. To me it looks like they had probable cause.
What am I missing?
You're mixing your law.
If it's a search, you need 'probable cause' (reasonable and probable grounds here), and a warrant.
If it isn't a search, you don't need probable cause, and you don't need a warrant.
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2009, 11:13:46 PM
You're mixing your law.
If it's a search, you need 'probable cause' (reasonable and probable grounds here), and a warrant.
If it isn't a search, you don't need probable cause, and you don't need a warrant.
Okay, I thought there were instances where probable cause is sufficient to where a warrant is not required for search.
Quote from: derspiess on December 18, 2009, 11:12:45 AM
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2009, 11:13:46 PM
You're mixing your law.
If it's a search, you need 'probable cause' (reasonable and probable grounds here), and a warrant.
If it isn't a search, you don't need probable cause, and you don't need a warrant.
Okay, I thought there were instances where probable cause is sufficient to where a warrant is not required for search.
There are, but they're very limited.
Antwaun? Sigh.
By the way the ruling is crap.
You don't (or shouldn't) consider the cell phone as separate from where and how it is found. If the cell phone is on the person, and police are entitled to search the person, then they are entitled to look on the cell phone. If police are not entitled to search the person, they can't search the cell phone.
It's as simple as that.
Quote from: The Brain on December 18, 2009, 04:36:00 PM
Antwaun? Sigh.
And the sweet ride of his the police impounded:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fstarwars%2Fimages%2Fthumb%2F6%2F62%2FTauntaun_NEGAS.jpg%2F250px-Tauntaun_NEGAS.jpg&hash=19696cc2add77daaf597bf9cf6af3e0bc61faa46)
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2009, 04:36:55 PM
By the way the ruling is crap.
You don't (or shouldn't) consider the cell phone as separate from where and how it is found. If the cell phone is on the person, and police are entitled to search the person, then they are entitled to look on the cell phone. If police are not entitled to search the person, they can't search the cell phone.
It's as simple as that.
No, it's not that simple.
For example, when taking a suspect into custody, the police are allowed to search him for concealed weapons, but if he happens to be carrying his appointment book on his person, they don't have the authority to look through that--the warrantless search is allowed in this instance to ensure the safety of the police and any bystanders, but it's limited to that purpose.
Of course, it's entirely possible that Canadian law differs on this subject.
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2009, 05:16:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2009, 04:36:55 PM
By the way the ruling is crap.
You don't (or shouldn't) consider the cell phone as separate from where and how it is found. If the cell phone is on the person, and police are entitled to search the person, then they are entitled to look on the cell phone. If police are not entitled to search the person, they can't search the cell phone.
It's as simple as that.
No, it's not that simple.
For example, when taking a suspect into custody, the police are allowed to search him for concealed weapons, but if he happens to be carrying his appointment book on his person, they don't have the authority to look through that--the warrantless search is allowed in this instance to ensure the safety of the police and any bystanders, but it's limited to that purpose.
Of course, it's entirely possible that Canadian law differs on this subject.
Not substantially. If detaining a suspect (not taking him into custody) police are allowed to do a cursory search for weapons. They would not be entitled to go through a cell phone.
However if police are arresting someone, they are actually obliged to search and catalogue all of that person's effects. As such they are entitled to search the cell phone.
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2009, 05:23:54 PM
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2009, 05:16:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2009, 04:36:55 PM
By the way the ruling is crap.
You don't (or shouldn't) consider the cell phone as separate from where and how it is found. If the cell phone is on the person, and police are entitled to search the person, then they are entitled to look on the cell phone. If police are not entitled to search the person, they can't search the cell phone.
It's as simple as that.
No, it's not that simple.
For example, when taking a suspect into custody, the police are allowed to search him for concealed weapons, but if he happens to be carrying his appointment book on his person, they don't have the authority to look through that--the warrantless search is allowed in this instance to ensure the safety of the police and any bystanders, but it's limited to that purpose.
Of course, it's entirely possible that Canadian law differs on this subject.
Not substantially. If detaining a suspect (not taking him into custody) police are allowed to do a cursory search for weapons. They would not be entitled to go through a cell phone.
However if police are arresting someone, they are actually obliged to search and catalogue all of that person's effects. As such they are entitled to search the cell phone.
1 cell phone. Cataloging complete.
I wonder though, how it would go if the cell phone were password/code-protected (as mine is). Could the officer legally compel the arrestee to disclose the code?
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 18, 2009, 08:13:16 PM
1 cell phone. Cataloging complete.
I wonder though, how it would go if the cell phone were password/code-protected (as mine is). Could the officer legally compel the arrestee to disclose the code?
How well do you think:
1 purse
Would work as a catalogue?
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2009, 08:42:00 PM
How well do you think:
1 purse
Would work as a catalogue?
So if they find a book they have to read it as part of the catalogue process?
They have to catalog stuff because they have to return it to the prisoner when he's released. That's not the same thing as searching it for evidence.
But I think we're in a situation where Canadian law and US law differ, so I think this is kind of pointless.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 18, 2009, 08:13:16 PM
1 cell phone. Cataloging complete.
I wonder though, how it would go if the cell phone were password/code-protected (as mine is). Could the officer legally compel the arrestee to disclose the code?
Can anyone answer the second part of the question?
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2009, 08:42:00 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 18, 2009, 08:13:16 PM
1 cell phone. Cataloging complete.
I wonder though, how it would go if the cell phone were password/code-protected (as mine is). Could the officer legally compel the arrestee to disclose the code?
How well do you think:
1 purse
Would work as a catalogue?
I don't know anyone that keeps perfume, makeup, money, credit cards, lip gloss, chapstick, sunglasses, .38 specials, and whatever other assorted crap women keep in purses, inside a cell phone.
Quote from: Barrister on December 18, 2009, 05:23:54 PM
Not substantially. If detaining a suspect (not taking him into custody) police are allowed to do a cursory search for weapons. They would not be entitled to go through a cell phone.
However if police are arresting someone, they are actually obliged to search and catalogue all of that person's effects. As such they are entitled to search the cell phone.
Let's go back to the laptop analogy. If the police arrest a person for assault and battery who happens to be carrying a laptop computer, the arrest itself is sufficient grounds to search the files on the laptop? Good luck getting a judge to admit that evidence.
Quote from: sbr on December 18, 2009, 10:30:32 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 18, 2009, 08:13:16 PM
1 cell phone. Cataloging complete.
I wonder though, how it would go if the cell phone were password/code-protected (as mine is). Could the officer legally compel the arrestee to disclose the code?
Can anyone answer the second part of the question?
Without a warrant? No. With a warrant, refusing access could conceivably get you charged with obstruction of justice.