« Environment - More on "Michigan asks U.S. Supreme Court to close shipping locks near Chicago to prevent Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes" What of Indiana? [Updated] | Main | Ind. Law - "State hopes database will curb meth" »

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Courts - More on: Ohio Supreme Court rules warrant required for cell phone searches

Updating this ILB entry from Dec. 15th, some quotes from an editorial today in the NY Times:

The Ohio Supreme Court has struck an important blow for privacy rights, ruling that the police need a warrant to search a cellphone. The court rightly recognized that cellphones today are a lot more than just telephones, that they hold a wealth of personal information and that the privacy interest in them is considerable. This was the first such ruling from a state supreme court. It is a model for other courts to follow.

Searches generally require warrants, but courts have carved out limited categories in which they are not needed. One of these is that police officers are allowed, when they arrest people, to search them and the area immediately surrounding them, as well as some kinds of containers in their possession. * * *

Rather than seeing a cellphone as a simple closed container, the majority noted that modern cellphones — especially ones that permit Internet access — are “capable of storing a wealth of digitized information.”

This is information, the court said, for which people reasonably have a high expectation of privacy, and under established Fourth Amendment principles, police officers must get a search warrant before they can look through call logs or examine other data. The court wisely decided that it made no sense to try to distinguish among various kinds of cellphones based on what specific functions they have. All cellphones, the court said, fall under the search warrant requirement.

Few federal courts have considered the issue of cellphone searches, and they have disagreed about whether a warrant should be required. The Ohio ruling eloquently makes the case for why the very personal information that new forms of technology aggregate must be accorded a significant degree of privacy.

Here is the Dec. 15th opinion in State of Ohio v. Smith.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 26, 2009 11:54 AM
Posted to Courts in general