OH5: Cell phone SW was not particular, GFE doesn’t apply, but harmless after all

The cell phone search warrant here failed particularity: “permitted a sweeping, comprehensive search of Hikec’s cell phone with no meaningful limits”, and the good faith exception doesn’t apply. On this record, however, it was harmless error in light of other evidence. State v. Hikec, 2024-Ohio-1940 (5th Dist. May 20, 2024):

[*P26] We find the cell phone warrant was broadly worded and thus permitted a sweeping, comprehensive search of Hikec’s cell phone with no meaningful limits on the discretion of law enforcement to search the cell phone. Officers were investigating allegations of felonious assault and domestic violence. S.W. told the officers Hikec possessed guns and drugs. After obtaining Hikec’s cell phone, the officers secured the cell phone warrant. While the cell phone warrant specifically mentioned searching Hikec’s SMS messaging data, it did not reference with any kind of particularity what information was sought, or make any references to searching the data for information regarding guns and/or drugs. It permitted a search of all the information on the device and no meaningful limit on the officer’s discretion. Accordingly, the cell phone warrant failed to contain sufficient particularity with regard to the digital evidence regarding guns.