OH10: No REP in IP subscriber information under OH Constitution

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in IP subscriber information under the Ohio Constitution. Other Ohio courts and other state courts have so held. [In fact, no other court disagrees yet.] State v. Fielding, 2014-Ohio-3105, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 3030 (10th Dist. July 15, 2014)*:

[*P20] Beyond Ohio, “[f]ederal courts have uniformly held that ‘subscriber information provided to an internet provider is not protected by the Fourth Amendment’s privacy expectation’ because it is voluntarily conveyed to third parties.” United States v. Christie, 624 F.3d 558, 573 (3d Cir.2010), quoting Perrine at 1204. The court reasoned that “‘IP addresses are not merely passively conveyed through third party equipment, but rather are voluntarily turned over in order to direct the third party servers.'” Id. at 574, quoting Forrester at 510. See also United States v. Suing, 712 F.3d 1209, 1213 (8th Cir.2013) (defendant who chose to share pornographic files via a peer-to-peer network “‘had no expectation of privacy in [the] government’s acquisition of his subscriber information, including his IP address and name from third-party service providers'”). Id., quoting United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 842 (8th Cir.2009); Guest v. Leis, 255 F.3d 325, 336 (6th Cir.2001) (no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in subscriber information voluntarily communicated to systems operators); United States v. Sawyer, 786 F.Supp.2d 1352, 1355 (N.D.Ohio 2011) (no Fourth Amendment privacy interest in information made available on a public peer-to-peer filing sharing program, since the individual’s expectation of privacy in that shared information is not objectively reasonable).