STATE v SMITH (2009) Facts After a reported drug overdose, Wendy Thomas Northern was brought to the Miami

Valley Hospital. While there, she was questioned by the police and eventually was made to agree to call her drug dealer, Antwaun Smith, to arrange for the purchase of cocaine in her residence. The police recorded the cell phone conversations between Northern and Smith arranging for the purchase. That night, Smith was arrested at Northerns residence. Police searched Smith, obtained a cellphone from him and then proceeded to search the scene for further evidence. They subsequently recovered bags containing crack cocaine from the place. The phone was likewise subjected to an inspection/search, which confirmed that Smiths cell phone had been used to speak with Northern. There was no warrant or Smiths consent, however, to search the phone. Smith was later indicted for possession and trafficking of cocaine. The trial court admitted in evidence the phone numbers and recorded calls obtained from the cellphone, reasoning that the search was akin to containers found on an arrestees person and subject to search for the preservation of evidence for use at trial (US v Finley). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Issue Did the warrantless search of the phones contents constitute an unreasonable search and seizure? Held/Ratio The cellphone is not a closed container as would justify a warrantless search. A closed container connotes a physical object that is capable of holding another physical object. The wealth of data recoverable from a cellphone does not fall within this context. Moreover, since the contents of a cellphone merit a higher level of privacy expectation from individuals possessing them, it is necessary that police obtain a warrant before intruding into a phones contents. The justifications behind allowing a search incident to arrest are officer safety and the preservation of evidence. There is no evidence that either justification was present in this case. A search of the cell phones contents was not necessary to ensure officer safety, and the state failed to present any evidence that the call records and phone numbers were subject to imminent destruction. We therefore hold that because a cell phone is not a closed container, and because an individual has a privacy interest in the contents of a cell phone that goes beyond the privacy interest in an address book or pager, an officer may not conduct a search of a cell phones contents incident to a lawful arrest without first obtaining a warrant. The Court of Appeals decision was reversed and the case remanded to the lower court for trial consistent with the foregoing decision, which ruled that since the search was unlawful, the evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible against the appellant.