Cell phone search requires a warrant, court rules

Greene County case sparked ruling

Antwaun Smith, 32, won a case before the Ohio Supreme Court, which ruled that police did not have the right to search his cell phone logs without a warrant. Smith, who is serving a 12-year prison sentence for drug trafficking, may now get a new trial.

ENLARGE PHOTO

Man, 68, drowns at Caesar Creek Lake
5/26/12
Water rescues prompt warning from health officials
5/25/12
Beach Waterpark sued for failure to deliver
5/25/12
Raleigh Trammell’s defense opens in felony trial
5/25/12
UD to move satellite campus to Dublin
5/25/12
> More headlines

By Laura A. Bischoff, Staff Writer Updated 11:24 PM Tuesday, December 15, 2009

COLUMBUS — Civil libertarians are cheering and prosecutors are lamenting a 4-3 landmark ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court that protects Ohioans from searches of their cell phones when they’re under arrest.

The court ruled Tuesday, Dec. 15, that police must get a search warrant before looking at data in a cell phone seized from someone when the phone search isn’t necessary to protect officers’ safety.

It appears the Ohio Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation to have ruled on the constitutionality of warrantless cell phone searches.

Carrie Davis, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said, the ruling is relevant for anyone who carries a cell phone.

“It’s very exciting that Ohio is on the leading edge on this issue. More and more, everyone has a cell phone and carries it on them,” she said.

Greene County Prosecutor Stephen Haller said, “I’m very disappointed in this razor-thin 4-3 decision.”

He said he will decide in the next two weeks whether to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision, which reversed a 2nd District Court of Appeals ruling in a Greene County case.

Beavercreek police arrested Antwaun Smith in January 2007 for suspected drug dealing and reviewed his cell phone call log. Smith, who is serving 12 years in prison, challenged the constitutionality of the search, arguing that a cell phone is akin to a personal computer, which generally cannot be searched without a warrant. Prosecutors argued that it’s more like searching a wallet or purse to ensure police have the right person.

Smith’s case was remanded for a new trial.

Share this article