Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that a probation officer's suspicionless search of a probationer's cell phone did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the probationer consented to warrantless searches of his "property" as a condition of community control. However, the search violated R.C. 2951.02(A), which requires probation officers to have "reasonable grounds" before searching. The court further held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to statutory violations—only to constitutional violations—so the child pornography evidence obtained from the phone was admissible. Key topics: Fourth Amendment, probation/community control, consent to search, statutory limitation on search authority, exclusionary rule, statutory vs. constitutional violations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the suspicionless search of a probationer's cell phone pursuant to a consent-to-search condition violates the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the search violated R.C. 2951.02(A)'s requirement that probation officers have reasonable grounds to believe the probationer is violating the law or conditions of community control.
- Whether the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained from a search that violated R.C. 2951.02(A) but not the Fourth Amendment.
Holdings
- The suspicionless search of a probationer's cell phone does not violate the Fourth Amendment when the probationer has consented to searches of his property as a condition of community control.
- The search violated R.C. 2951.02(A) because the probation officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe Campbell was violating the law or conditions of community control.
- The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained from a search that violated R.C. 2951.02(A) but not the Fourth Amendment, absent a legislative mandate.
Key quotations
“We conclude that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment: under established caselaw, probationers who sign a consent-to-search agreement as a condition of community control may be subjected to random searches. But there was a violation of the Ohio statute—the officer had no 'reasonable grounds' to believe that the probationer was violating the law or the terms of his community control.” (¶ 3)
“Because this case does not involve a Fourth Amendment violation, the exclusionary rule associated with the Fourth Amendment does not apply.” (¶ 21)
“Thus, we will not apply the exclusionary rule 'to statutory violations falling short of constitutional violations, absent a legislative mandate requiring the application of the exclusionary rule.'” (¶ 22)
Factual background
Daniel Campbell was on community control after judicial release from prison for robbery. As a condition, he signed a consent-to-search provision allowing warrantless searches of his person, property, vehicle, and residence. His probation officer conducted a random home check without any suspicion of wrongdoing, searched Campbell's cell phone, and discovered child pornography. Campbell was subsequently charged with multiple felony offenses.
Procedural history
Campbell moved to suppress evidence obtained from a suspicionless search of his cell phone. The trial court denied the motion, and Campbell entered a no-contest plea. The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the search violated R.C. 2951.02(A) and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the state's discretionary appeal.
Remand instructions
Reversed and conviction reinstated.