Ohio Supreme Court· 12/15/2009

State v. Smith

Citations

2009 Ohio 6426
124 Ohio St. 3d 163
920 N.E.2d 949

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that warrantless search of data within cell phone violates Fourth Amendment
arguing that cell phones were not closed containers because they did not store physical objects
rejecting a comparison to address books or laptops because, “[gjiven their unique nature as multifunctional tools, cell phones defy easy categorization”
defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone's contents
\We hold that the warrantless search of data within a cell phone seized incident to a lawful arrest is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment when the search is unnecessary for the safety of law-enforcement officers and there are no exigent circumstances.\
personal cell phone's general contents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lanzinger, Moyer, Pfeifer, O'Connor, Stratton, O'Donnell, Cupp

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

107 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.