Ohio Supreme Court Rules Illegal Search and Seizure of a Cell Phone!

17 December 2009 Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog Blog
Authors: Peter Vogel

In a 5-4 ruling the Ohio Supreme Court now requires a search warrant to search cell phone content which the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio calls a landmark decision as this appears to be a case of first impression. The defendant’s cell phone was searched without a warrant after he was arrested on drug charges based on a police sting operation. At trial the defendant claimed a violation of the 4th Amendment that although the police had the right to take his cell, the police did not have the right to search the contents of the cell. A decision to appeal to the US Supreme Court is pending.

US Supreme Court Agrees to Consider Text Messages

This week the Supreme Court agreed to consider the privacy claims of police officers text messages in City of Ontario v. Quon. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the city employees are entitled to privacy of the text messages stored at Arch Wireless’ servers since the city provided the text services to the officers as part of their jobs. Each officer received 25,000 characters a month as an allowance and the officers paid for any overages. The city paid no attention to the text messages until it discovered that officer Jeff Quon (who paid for characters above the allowance) had sent sexually explicit messages that were clearly personal and not business related. The question in this case is also a claim of violation of the 4th Amendment.

Web 2.0 Communications

Given what people post on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn it is a wonder that many folks expect much privacy today. Courts will continue to be confronted with perplexing issues regarding the use of the Internet and this will never be less complex, but as I  blogged this week Judges in Florida should not be social network friends with lawyers who appear before them in cases even though lawyers may contribute to their election campaigns. As web 2.0 expands one easily images that the courts will have to reconsider how the 1789 written Constitution applies.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Authors

Related Services