The Ohio Supreme Court said Tuesday police officers must obtain a search warrant before scouring the contents of a suspect's cell phone, unless their safety is in danger.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio described the ruling as a landmark case. The issue appears never to have reached another state high court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Ohio high court ruled 5-4 in favor of Antwaun Smith, who was arrested on drug charges after he answered a cell phone call from a crack cocaine user acting as a police informant.

Officers took Smith's cell phone when he was arrested and, acting without a warrant and without his consent, searched it. They found a call history and stored numbers that showed Smith had previously been in contact with the drug user.

Smith was charged with cocaine possession, cocaine trafficking, tampering with evidence and two counts of possession of criminal tools.

During his trial, Smith argued that the evidence obtained through the cell phone search was inadmissible because it violated the constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure.

North Carolina's appeals court has temporarily blocked the release of two convicted murderers sentenced under a 1970s law that limited life terms.

The court clerk issued an order Monday afternoon approving a request to halt the case, but he gave no explanation. The decision gives state attorneys another chance to argue the inmates should not be set free.

Superior Court Judge Ripley Rand had ordered convicted murderers Alford Jones and Faye Brown freed earlier Monday. Their attorneys convinced Rand that sentence-reduction credits have shortened their life terms, which were defined as only 80 years when they were sentenced.

Rand had set a 5 p.m. deadline for the Department of Correction to release Jones and Brown.

Senators trying to craft bipartisan climate legislation offered a revised proposal Thursday that would add incentives for building nuclear power plants and open the way for expanded oil and gas drilling off the nation's coastlines in hopes of attracting wider support.

The new framework for a Senate climate bill would ease back requirements for early reductions of greenhouse gases. It calls for cuts in the range of 17 percent by 2020, instead of 20 percent, similar to reductions already approved by the House and what Obama will call for at an international climate conference in Copenhagen.

"We would like to underscore the fact that the framework we are releasing today is a starting point for our negotiations going forward," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

The framework provided only a broad view of what a compromise bill would include with details to emerge early next year. But it reflects a widespread view that the climate bill that advanced out of committee in early November would need to be significantly revised for any hope of getting bipartisan support from at least 60 senators.

The pouty-lipped Bratz dolls can strut their stuff a little longer.

A federal appeals court panel in Pasadena on Wednesday suspended an order that MGA Entertainment stop selling Bratz products this year, recall remaining toys and give ownership of the brand to rival Mattel Inc.

Mattel won $100 million last year in a lawsuit that claimed copyright infringement and breach of contract because the dolls' designer was under contract to Mattel when he developed the Bratz concept.

MGA was ordered to transition its Bratz line to Mattel by 2010, but the U.S. 9th Circuit appellate panel stayed the order until it can rule on MGA's appeal.

MGA Chief Executive Isaac Larian says the order is a victory for fair competition.

Mattel says it can't comment until the appeals process is over.

Unions leaders, among the most passionate backers of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, pressed Democratic senators Thursday to drop a tax on high-value insurance plans to pay for remaking the nation's system.

As the Senate entered its 11th straight day of debate on the sweeping legislation, members of several labor unions denounced the proposed tax on so-called "Cadillac plans," arguing it wouldn't just hit CEOs but also middle-class Americans who passed on salary increases to negotiate better health benefits.

"I support health care reform but I can't afford this tax," Valerie Castle Stanley, an AT&T call center worker and member of the Communications Workers of America, said at a news conference outside the Capitol. "For families like mine that are on a budget, the results will be devastating."

At issue is a proposed 40 percent excise tax on insurance companies, keyed to premiums paid on health care plans costing more than $8,500 annually for individuals and $23,000 for families. The tax would raise some $150 billion over 10 years to help pay for the Democrats' nearly $1 trillion health care bill. The legislation, which appears to be edging closer to passage, would revamp the U.S. health care system with new requirements on individuals and employers designed to extend health coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

The Supreme Court appeared inclined Tuesday to limit federal prosecutors' use of a fraud law that has helped win convictions of high-profile corporate executives and public officials, or throw out the law altogether.

The justices, hearing two challenges to the honest services fraud law, seemed to be in broad agreement that the law is vague and has been used to make a crime out of mistakes, minor transgressions and mere ethical violations.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he worries that the Obama administration's reading of the law makes criminals out of vast numbers of U.S. workers, including possibly employees who read The Daily Racing Form on the job.

"There are 150 million workers in the United States. I think 140 of them would flunk the test," Breyer said.

The vagueness of the honest services statute "is the working problem here," Justice Anthony Kennedy said.

Justice Antonin Scalia called the law "a mush of language" and pointed out that federal prosecutors have used it different ways in different prosecutions. If the Justice Department can't figure out what is embraced by this law, "I don't know how you expect the average citizen to," Scalia said.

A New York psychiatrist is expected in federal court to discuss the religious writings of the man accused of abducting Elizabeth Smart.

According to Dr. Michael Welner, some of Brian David Mitchell's writings claim that Smart went with him willingly and with the permission of her parents.

Mitchell drafted the "Book of Immanuel David Isaiah II" after his arrest and interrogations by police in March 2003.

Welner is testifying as part of a 10-day competency hearing to determine whether Mitchell can stand trial in U.S. District Court. The competency hearing enters its second week Monday.

Mitchell is charged with kidnapping and unlawful transportation of a minor across state lines.

Prosecutors contend Mitchell is competent and faking an illness to avoid prosecution.