OH3: Cell phone search can extend to cloud storage it’s connected to

Defendant gave consent to search his cell phone, and the court notes, without deciding, that other courts have held that such consent would reach his data stored on the cloud or another server. That issue doesn’t, however, have to be decided because there was a warrant, too, and it was particular and used in good faith. State v. Houser, 2026-Ohio-1339 (3d Dist. Apr. 13, 2026).

Dog sniff during traffic stop was reasonable where it didn’t delay the stop. State v. Unser, 2026-Ohio-1267 (1st Dist. Apr. 8, 2026).*

Dog sniff at a hotel room door from a common hallway violated no reasonable expectation of privacy. United States v. Nemeth, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10469 (10th Cir. Apr. 13, 2026).*

Plaintiff gets his PV hearing stayed pending a suppression motion he wants to file in his new criminal case but can’t yet. Matter of Sandlers v. Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 26047 (Rensselaer Co. Apr. 6, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Computer and cloud searches, Curtilage, Dog sniff, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.