CAN THE POLICE SEARCH YOUR CELL PHONE WITHOUT A WARRANT?

The Ohio Supreme Court just decided a novel question of law a couple weeks ago relating to the law of search and seizure. Up until now, neither the U.S. Supreme Court, nor any state supreme court has rendered a decision on whether the police can search the contents of a person's cell phone without a warrant. As I have said before, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits warrantless searches unless the state can show that there were exigent circumstances or that the person who was searched consented to the search. Exigent circumstances include the possibility that the defendant was armed, that there was some other sort of threat presented, or that there was a possibility of the evidence being destroyed.

In Ohio v. Smith, a person who had bought crack cocaine from the defendant, Smith had been taken to the hospital after a drug overdose. At the hospital, the police questioned the patient and had her call Smith to arrange another drug deal. The police recorded their phone conversation. Later, the police arrested Smith at his customer's home. At the time of arrest, police searched Smith and took his cell phone. The police also later found bags of cocaine at the home.

While Smith was at the police station being booked, the police searched Smith's cell phone to confirm that he was the person the hospital patient had called and spoken to about setting up the drug deal. Smith did not consent to the search and the police did not have a warrant.

Smith went to trial and was found guilty of trafficking cocaine. Prior to trial, Smith moved to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone on the ground that it was a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but the motion was denied. After Smith was convicted, he appealed and the Ohio State Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Court of Appeals based its decision on U.S. v. Finnley, which I will discuss below.

The police can conduct what is called a search incident to arrest if it is contemporaneous to the arrest. This is for officer safety and to prevent the destruction of evidence. The police did this when they initially too Smith's phone, but when they were at the police station, a significant amount of time had passed and a search could not have been considered to be contemporaneous to the arrest at that point. In addition, the whole justification for a search incident to arrest is for officer safety and to prevent the destruction of evidence. Here, the police had no reason to be concerned for their safety, as Smith had already been placed under arrest, handcuffed, and transported to the police station. The Court of Appeals nevertheless ruled that the search was permissible under U.S. v. Finnley, which I will now discuss.

In Finnley, the Fifth Circuit ruled that cell phones were analogous to containers found on an arestee's person, which are subject to searches for the preservation of evidence.

In U.S. v. Park, however, a Federal District Court ruled that cell phones are not the same as containers for the purposes of a Fourth Amendment analysis. That court reasoned that because cell phones “have the capacity for storing immense amounts of private information,” they are much more like laptops, in which arestees have a significant privacy interest.

The Ohio Supreme Court cited U.S. v. Park in rejecting the lower court's reliance on U.S. v. Finnley. The Ohio Supreme Court said that because a person has such a high expectation of privacy in their cell phones, police cannot search the phones without a warrant. The court also stated that the police failed to show that the search was conducted because there was a concern for officer safety or imminent destruction of evidence.

This has been the first state supreme court on the issue of whether police can search the contents of a cell phone and for that reason I am posting it in this blog, which is usually limited to Washington State and federal cases and statutes. Hopefully, Washington State will follow Ohio's lead in protecting our privacy rights.