exigency exception in Ohio

2026Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 248 (2013). {¶106} “Once a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, he or she may search a validly stopped motor vehicle based upon the well-established automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 51 (2000), citing Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466 (1999) (the automobile exception does not have a separate exigency requirement). {¶107} Upon this law, we address Appellant’s argument about the court’s January 21, 2015 denial of his motion to suppress the evidence recovered

2019Id. at 51, citing, e.g., Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 , 119 S.Ct. 2013 , 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999) (if there is probable cause to search a vehicle, a search is not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant was not actually obtained; the automobile exception does not have a separate exigency requirement and police can search a car that is readily mobile where probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband).

2026Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 248 (2013). {¶106} “Once a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, he or she may search a validly stopped motor vehicle based upon the well-established automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 51 (2000), citing Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466 (1999) (the automobile exception does not have a separate exigency requirement). {¶107} Upon this law, we address Appellant’s argument about the court’s January 21, 2015 denial of his motion to suppress the evidence recovered

2023See State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 , 734 N.E.2d 804 (2000) (an officer with probable cause to believe a person has drugs during a traffic stop need not leave the drugs in the person’s pocket while a warrant is obtained under the exigency exception).

2022Id., citing Mills at 367 and California v. Carney, 471 -10- U.S. 386, 393, 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985).

2022Id., citing Mills at 367 and California v. Carney, 471 -10- U.S. 386, 393, 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985).

2024A vehicle’s mobility is the exigency under this exception, and “[i]f a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment . . . permits police to search the vehicle without more.” Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 (1996). {¶ 24} Probable cause is a legal standard that refers to the reasonable belief, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a person has committed or is committing a crime.

2021Miami No. 2019-CA-14, 2020-Ohio-4240, ¶ 30 , citing Mills at 367 ; Dyson at 467 . “[T]he automobile exception does not have 1 R.C. 2923.12(B) provides that “[n]o person who has been issued a concealed handgun license shall * * * fail to promptly inform any law enforcement officer who approaches the person after the person has been stopped that the person has been issued a concealed handgun license and that the person then is carrying a concealed handgun[.]” a separate exigency requirement: ‘If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amend

2021State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 367 (1992); Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 (1999); California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 (1985).

2020State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 367 , 582 N.E.2d 972 (1992); California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 393 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985).

2026Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 248 (2013). {¶106} “Once a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, he or she may search a validly stopped motor vehicle based upon the well-established automobile exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 51 (2000), citing Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466 (1999) (the automobile exception does not have a separate exigency requirement). {¶107} Upon this law, we address Appellant’s argument about the court’s January 21, 2015 denial of his motion to suppress the evidence recovered

2022See, e.g., United States v. Babcock, 924 F.3d 1180, 1196 (11th Cir.) (explaining that warrantless seizure of cell phone required probable cause to believe both that evidence of a crime would be found on it and that the evidence would be destroyed before they could 17. obtain a warrant).

2017Further, that Parsons was in custody at the time Saneholtz looked -22- Case No. 7-16-08 inside Parsons’s vehicle does not extinguish the lawfulness of Saneholtz’s search.1 See United States v. Graham, 275 F.3d 490, 510 (6th Cir.2001).