OH: The fact a cell phone was found at the scene of a car crash gives no PC to search it for evidence of distracted driving merely by its presence

The fact a cell phone was found at the scene of a car crash gives no probable cause to search it for evidence of distracted driving merely by its presence. “[*P1] In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to the execution of a constitutionally deficient search warrant authorizing the search of cell phones found at the scene of a car crash, when nothing in the affidavit supporting the warrant connected the phones to the crash other than the police officer’s averment that evidence of how the accident occurred ‘may’ be found on the phones. We determine that the good faith-exception does not apply under the facts of this case. For the objective-good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule to allow the introduction of evidence obtained through a defective search warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the affidavit supporting the warrant must evince a minimum connection between the item or place searched and the alleged criminal activity. This is not a difficult standard to meet; a minimum connection means only some modicum of evidence, however slight, that connects the criminal activity described in the affidavit to the item or place searched. See United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 497 (6th Cir.2017). The warrant affidavit at issue in this case, even when generously construed, does not meet this standard. Thus, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to the search of the cell phones in this case.” State v. Schubert, 2022-Ohio-4604, 2022 Ohio LEXIS 2599 (Dec. 22, 2022).