-
639 N.E.2d 498 Ohio Court of Appeals March 16, 1994 No. 13987.
warrant that intrusion.”
Without a warrant, probable cause, and/or exigent circumstances, a search of a suspect’s luggage (or jacket pockets) is not reasonable. Id. at 497 , 103 S.Ct. at 1323-1324 , 75 L.Ed.2d at 235-236 .
“ask” a citizen, without the slightest articulable suspicion, to relinquish her individual liberties to permit a search of her car and luggage.
-
620 N.E.2d 906 Ohio Court of Appeals March 30, 1993 No. 1842.
Shortly before midnight on May 5, 1991, Chillicothe Police Officer Thomas Cunningham patrolled the area of Anderson’s Bar and Grill.
The appellate court noted the officer with the flashlight searched Bird’s automobile without a warrant.
Appellant contends that Bird stands for the proposition that officers have no authority to look into automobiles without a warrant. We disagree.
-
654 N.E.2d 1034 Ohio Court of Appeals January 25, 1995 No. 94 CA 2036.
On May 5, 1994, he filed a motion to suppress. The hearing was held on May 16, 1994. At the conclusion of the hearing, his motion was denied.
Police officers may not detain an individual, “even momentarily,” without “reasonable, objective grounds for doing so.” Retherford, supra, at 595 , 639 N.E.2d at 504 , citing Florida v.
There were two police officers, each of whom arrived in a separate patrol car. They approached his vehicle, one on each side of his car, accompanied by a dog police-trained in drug detection.
-
641 N.E.2d 1172 Ohio Court of Appeals May 19, 1994 No. 65382.
Appellant raises the following assignment of error: “The trial court erred in allowing the use of evidence which was seized as a result of an improper investigatory stop, without a warrant and without any exception to the warrant
has been held to be insufficient to warrant a stop.
The officer need not be absolutely certain the individual is armed but may initiate a search when his *97 suspicions are reasonably aroused. State v.
-
657 N.E.2d 591 Ohio Court of Appeals April 19, 1995 No. 2359-M.
Therefore, we hold that in the context of a routine traffic stop, a police officer may ask a detained motorist to sit in the front seat of the patrol car without violating the Fourth Amendment if the motorist’s detention in the front
In light of Berkemer , it is clear that an officer may engage in routine questioning of a detained motorist during the pendency of a traffic stop without violating the Fifth Amendment.
Since police officers obtaining a warrant to search are required to have up-to-date information, and cannot obtain a warrant based on stale information, it is perhaps unjustified to allow a search based on what may be stale smells.
-
701 N.E.2d 778 Ohio Court of Appeals August 15, 1997 No. 16186.
He further disclosed, however, that the transaction was foiled by the arrival of Officer Brame and that the woman had left the car without completing the sale.
The officer had also observed three or four people standing around the car and one person on the passenger side of the car leaning in the window, all of whom began to walk away in different directions when the police officers, who
to the warrant requirement.”
-
645 N.E.2d 831 Ohio Court of Appeals September 8, 1994 No. 93 CA 28.
He activated the lights and siren on his patrol car. The car appearing to be Mr. Venham’s was stopped. He called for a back-up unit.
In order to warrant a brief investigatory stop pursuant to Terry, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that
Evans (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 405, 408 , 618 N.E.2d 162, 166 , the Ohio Supreme Court recognized that a police officer may request the driver of a lawfully stopped vehicle to display his license: “Pursuant to R.C. 4507.35, police
-
463 N.E.2d 47 Ohio Court of Appeals February 11, 1983 No. E-82-29
At the police station, appellant was told by Detective Wolfe that his car was in the police garage and that the officers wished to search it.
search or we could get a search warrant drawn up.”
here, a statement by police that if consent is not forthcoming a warrant will be obtained may well serve to vitiate the voluntariness of any subsequent consent.
-
577 N.E.2d 1144 Ohio Court of Appeals May 22, 1989 No. 55330.
Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the search of his car and his house.
At the suppression hearing, Detective Ronald Rhoads of the Cleveland Police Department testified that on August 14, 1987 he executed a search warrant at 2468 East 84th Street, Cleveland, Ohio.
According to the record before us, the search warrant contained the following: “TO: CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMANT [sic] AND/OR DETECTIVE RONALD B.
-
612 N.E.2d 728 Ohio Court of Appeals August 20, 1992 No. 12860.
Hearsay information may be relied on by the officer in providing an affidavit for a search warrant if in fact the officer reasonably believes the information to be true. Franks v.
*443 The police had a warrant to search the house 2 for cocaine and related items.
“Although *445 no special danger to the police is suggested by the evidence in this record, the execution of a warrant to search for narcotics is the kind of transaction that may give rise to sudden violence or frantic efforts
-
2011 Ohio 3373, 961 N.E.2d 223 Ohio Court of Appeals June 29, 2011 No. 10 MA 56
the scope of the search became unconstitutional once the officer found no intruders but decided to call the Youngstown Police Department Bomb Squad to inspect the house without first obtaining a warrant.
The police obtained a search warrant, and the plants and other contraband were confiscated, leading to a variety of felony drug charges. Id. at ¶ 22.
Stanberry challenged the search and seizure on the grounds that no exigent circumstances existed. {¶ 30} The Stanberry court recognized that police officers may, without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, intrude on a
-
602 N.E.2d 296 Ohio Court of Appeals September 23, 1991 No. 58492.
It was held until the police could get a search warrant. A search warrant was obtained to search the vehicle.
However, we do not conclude that these items gave Patrolman Strainer some heightened authority to search the appellant’s room without a search warrant.
It is true that a hotel employee may enter a room in performance of its duties, but they cannot per se authorize or give consent to a police search of that room. Stoner v.
-
2007 Ohio 3353 Ohio Court of Appeals July 2, 2007 No. CA2006-10-023.
Erickson , 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , 11 , 1996-Ohio-431 . {¶ 14} An investigatory stop, on the other hand, allows an officer to briefly stop and detain an individual, without an arrest warrant and without probable cause, in order to *Page
The fact Trooper Vongsy may have been "looking for a violation so that *Page 7 he could stop * * * appellant's vehicle," as appellant emphasizes, is without consequence.
Moreover, a lawfully detained vehicle may be subjected to a canine sniff of the vehicle's exterior even without the presence of a reasonable suspicion of drug-related activity. Howard at ¶ 17 ; State v.
-
591 N.E.2d 810 Ohio Court of Appeals December 6, 1990 No. 12037.
Supreme Court held that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and
The police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts, which taken together with their rational inferences reasonably warrant that intrusion.
Under any objective view of the evidence, the conduct of the police officers resulted in a detention or seizure of the appellant prior to the search of her purse by Officer Sipes.
-
691 N.E.2d 703 Ohio Court of Appeals January 21, 1997 No. 96-L-055.
Because the search of the pop can was performed without a warrant, it is deemed to be per se improper under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution unless it falls within one of the few exceptions to the warrant
As part of the search, the police frisked a passenger and found drugs on his person.
probable cause to believe that the car contains the instrumentalities of a crime sufficient to justify the full warrantless search of the vehicle. * * * ’ (Citations omitted.)
-
690 N.E.2d 567 Ohio Court of Appeals December 18, 1996 Nos. C-950847 and C-960125.
cause” to justify the stop and subsequent search of the automobile in which they were traveling. 3 On April 17, 1995, at approximately 4:40 p.m., Lockland Police Officer Todd J.
The resulting investigation and search of the car led to the charge against Smith for driving a car without a license and the charges against both Smith and Taylor for carrying a concealed weapon.
A police officer, without probable cause to stop and briefly detain a person, may do so if the officer has reasonable suspicion based upon specific articulable facts that the suspect is engaged in criminal activity.
-
649 N.E.2d 7 Ohio Court of Appeals November 14, 1994 No. 66984.
warrant naming other objects, search during hot pursuit, search incident to arrest, and a search for purposes other than finding evidence.
or the existence of a search warrant or one of the traditional exceptions to the warrant requirement
Whether it is immediately apparent that what has been observed is evidence of crime may have a bearing upon what the police may do as a result of this nonsearch observation, but it is clearly irrelevant to the threshold issue of whether
-
173 Ohio App. 3d 119 Ohio Court of Appeals August 31, 2007 Nos. L-06-1195 and L-06-1197.
At 9:40 p.m., police found appellant in his car at the location that had been provided. They asked appellant to exit the vehicle and conducted a “pat-down” search of his person.
court would issue the search warrant.”
This search would certainly include the driver’s side interior door panel of an open door. {¶ 33} When an “incriminating object” comes into plain view in a place that an officer is legally entitled to be, police may seize it without
-
2015 Ohio 2996 Ohio Court of Appeals July 13, 2015 No. 13CA3592
Bryant and Woods testified that Gavin admitted after he was arrested that anything found in the police search of the car was his and not his girlfriend’s.
Gallia No. 06CA13, 2007-Ohio-4863, ¶ 25 (“It is now generally accepted that a probationer’s home may be searched without a warrant and on less than probable cause”).
McKinney, 112 Ohio Misc.2d 30, 32 , 750 N.E.2d 1237 (Medina C.P. 2000) (probationer agreed to a search without a warrant of his person, residence or car to ensure that he was complying with his probation). {¶45} Instead,
-
322 N.E.2d 311 Ohio Court of Appeals May 31, 1974 No. 1107
In Cady , a warrant-less search was made of the trunk of an automobile, driven by a Chicago police officer who was arrested and incarcerated for drunken driving.
“The Supreme Court has not decided whether an inventory search, without a warrant or justified by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, would be considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Harris v.
In addressing itself to a con *55 tention that it was reasonable to search an entire house without a warrant when a suspect is arrested in the house, the Supreme Court said in Chimel v. California, 395 U.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.