On March 15, 2012 the Supreme Court of Ohio decided State v. Dunn, 2012-Ohio-1008. In this 6-1 decision written by Justice Stratton, the Court approved a warrantless traffic stop when the police reasonably believe there is an immediate need for their help to protect life or prevent a serious injury. Justice Lanzinger wrote
Fourth Amendment
What’s On Their Minds? If the Police Believe an Occupant of a Car Needs Emergency Assistance Based on a Tip to the Dispatcher, is a Warrantless Stop Permissible? State v. Dunn
By Marianna Bettman on
Posted in Ohio Supreme Court Watch, What's On Their Minds?
Update: The merit decision in this case was handed down March 15, 2012. Read the analysis of the decision here.
On October 19 the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in State v. Dunn, 2011-0213. The issue is what the state must prove to justify a warrantless emergency stop based on a citizen…
What’s On Their Minds? Must the Police Have a Warrant to Place a GPS Tracking Device Under a Car? State v Johnson
By Marianna Bettman on
10/25/12 According to attorney Bill Gallagher, the trial judge again denied the motion to suppress in this case, and he plans to appeal again.
10/12/12. Further Update: According to a story in the Cincinnati Herald by Dan Yount, Sudinia Johnson, the defendant in the Ohio case, remains in prison. His attorney William Gallagher questions why…
Oral Argument Preview: If the Police Believe an Occupant of a Car Needs Emergency Assistance Based on a Tip to the Dispatcher, is a Warrantless Stop Permissible? State v. Dunn.
Update: The merit decision in this case was handed down March 15, 2012. Read the analysis of the decision here.
On October 19, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral arguments in the case of State v. Dunn, 2011-0213.The issue in this case is whether a traffic stop made under the belief that…
Oral Argument Preview: Must the Police Have a Warrant to Place a GPS Tracking Device Under a Car? State v Johnson.
Update: On March 13 2012, the Supreme Court of Ohio vacated the judgment of the court of appeals in this case, and remanded it back to the trial court to apply the holding in U.S. v. Jones, 132 S.Ct.945 (2012). The last paragraph of this post questioned why the Ohio Supreme Court was hearing this…
Oral Argument Preview: Limiting the Exclusionary Rule. State v. Gould.
By Marianna Bettman on
Update: The merit decision in this case was handed down on January 17, 2012. Read the analysis of the decision here.
In State v. Gould, to be argued before the Ohio Supreme Court on Sept. 7, the state will argue that the exclusionary rule should only apply in circumstances involving “deliberate, reckless or…
Searching A Cell Phone
By Marianna Bettman on
Posted in Commentary, Ohio Supreme Court Watch
As I have written many times in this column, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also implicates privacy concerns. A person has an interest that justifies Fourth Amendment protection when that person has a legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy in the property that is…
Searching A Cell Phone
By Marianna Bettman on
Posted in Commentary, Ohio Supreme Court Watch
As I have written many times in this column, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also implicates privacy concerns. A person has an interest that justifies Fourth Amendment protection when that person has a legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy in the property that is…
The Fourth Amendment, Resuscitated
By Marianna Bettman on
Posted in Commentary, Constitutional Law
Most of the Fourth Amendment cases from the U.S. Supreme Court during the years of the Bush administration seemed to cut back its protections further and further, to a frightening degree. This has been especially true with car stops and ensuing searches. So the recently released case of Arizona v. Gant was a pleasant surprise,…