State v. Hidey
2016 Ohio 7233
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Oct 28, 2014: armed robbery at Marty’s Coaches Corner in New Philadelphia; investigation led by Detective Shawn Nelson.
- Tip from Charla Hamilton: texts about "making moves" came from a number she recognized as Kody Hidey’s phone; she said Devonte Sherman (identified in a photo lineup by victims) used Hidey’s phone and stayed with him.
- Nov 3, 2014: Detective Nelson interviewed Hidey at the police station, viewed Hidey’s phone, then seized it after confirming Sherman had used it.
- Nov 13, 2014: police obtained a search warrant for the phone’s contents (ten-day gap between seizure and warrant).
- Hidey was indicted for aggravated robbery with a firearm specification; he moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless seizure and the trial court granted suppression.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the seizure was justified by exigent circumstances and the ten-day delay in obtaining a warrant was not unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hidey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless seizure of Hidey’s phone violated Fourth Amendment | Officer had probable cause to seize phone pending warrant | Seizure lacked warrant and exigent circumstances; officer could have obtained a warrant earlier | Court: seizure lawful — probable cause existed and exigent circumstances justified immediate seizure |
| Whether 10-day delay to obtain warrant rendered seizure unconstitutional | Delay was reasonable given weekends/holiday and shared-phone facts | Ten-day delay made the seizure unreasonable; court raised delay sua sponte | Court: delay not unconstitutional under circumstances; expectation of privacy weakened and property secured |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (discusses warrantless seizure of property pending issuance of a warrant when exigent circumstances exist)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (distinguishes interests implicated by seizure versus search)
- State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio Supreme Court: high privacy interest in cell-phone contents; warrant required to search)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (probable cause and reasonable suspicion reviewed de novo)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (standards for appellate review of suppression findings)
- United States v. Martin, 157 F.3d 46 (Second Circuit: multi-day delay to obtain warrant can be reasonable depending on context)