inventory exception in Ohio

2007Florida v. Wells (1990), 495 U.S. 1 , 4 . {¶ 29} Appellant argues that, pursuant to the decision of the Second Appellate District in State v. Taylor (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 416 , the officers were not authorized to impound his vehicle.

2002Florida v. Wells (1990), 495 U.S. 1 , 4 , 109 L.Ed.2d 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 . {¶ 54} The State presented the testimony of Det.

2011State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St.3d 105 , 1999-Ohio-253 , 717 N.E.2d 329 ; Crosby.

2011State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St.3d 105 , 1999-Ohio-253 , 717 N.E.2d 329 ; Crosby.

2021In re Estate of Platt, 148 Ohio App.3d 132 , 2002-Ohio-3382 , ¶13 (11th Dist.). {¶7} R.C. 2115.02 provides, in relevant part: {¶8} Within three months after the date of the executor’s or administrator’s appointment, * * * the executor or administrator shall file with the court an inventory of the decedent’s interest in real property located in this state and of the tangible and intangible personal property of the decedent that is to be administered and that has come to the executor’s or administrator’s possession or knowledge.

2003Id.

2007State v. Hathman (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 403 , paragraph one of the syllabus. *Page 8 {¶ 28} The inventory exception to the warrant requirement exists in order to protect the owner's property while in police custody and to insure against claims of lost or stolen property.

2001According to appellant, "the search of Mr. Patrick's [appellant's] vehicle falls outside this exception to the warrant requirement as it was not conducted in accordance with any standardized policies, procedures or practices." "An inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle is a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State v. Hathman (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 403 , 405 .

2019Montgomery No. 25658, 2013-Ohio-4825 . {¶ 30} Third, Cannady claims that the trial court erred by overruling his motion to suppress, because the State failed to prove that the Magnum was searched consistent with the Dayton Police Department’s Tow Policy. {¶ 31} We have described the inventory exception to the warrant requirement of -11- the Fourth Amendment, stating: “[T]he ‘inventory exception’ to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment permits the police to conduct a warrantless search to produce an inventory of the contents of an impounded vehicle.” To satisfy the inventory exceptio

2017In ruling on the motion to suppress, the trial court disagreed, ultimately determining that the search was lawful pursuant to the inventory exception. {¶ 17} Lewis claims that Officer McCoy's decision to search the hood of the vehicle was investigative, rather than administrative, because the officer was unable to point to specific police policy that required him to search under the hood of a car prior to towing it and because he testified that he commonly finds weapons under the hood of vehicles he searches. {¶ 18} To support his position, Lewis cites this court's decision in State v. Woods ,

2014State v. Robinson, 58 Ohio St.2d 478, 480 , 391 N.E.2d 317 (1979); State v. Parker, 2d Dist.

2014State v. Robinson, 58 Ohio St.2d 478, 480 , 391 N.E.2d 317 (1979); State v. Parker, 2d Dist.

2014Montgomery No. 24620, 2012-Ohio-1858, ¶ 13 .

2011State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St.3d 105 , 1999-Ohio-253 , 717 N.E.2d 329 ; Crosby.

2007Florida v. Wells (1990), 495 U.S. 1 , 4 . {¶ 29} Appellant argues that, pursuant to the decision of the Second Appellate District in State v. Taylor (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 416 , the officers were not authorized to impound his vehicle.

2002In State v. Murrell (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 489 , the Supreme Court recently adopted the bright-line test regarding automobile searches following a lawful arrest from New York v. Belton (1981), 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 .

2002In State v. Murrell (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 489 , the Supreme Court recently adopted the bright-line test regarding automobile searches following a lawful arrest from New York v. Belton (1981), 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 .

2002In State v. Murrell (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 489 , the Supreme Court recently adopted the bright-line test regarding automobile searches following a lawful arrest from New York v. Belton (1981), 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 .

2002In State v. Cook (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 386 , 389 , we stated: The inventory exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment permits the police to conduct a warrantless search to produce an inventory of the contents of an impounded vehicle.

2001As the United States Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , ". . . as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal." As is stated above, appellant initially argues that the search of appellant's vehicle does not fit within the inventory exception to the warrant requirement.

2001As the United States Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , ". . . as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal." As is stated above, appellant initially argues that the search of appellant's vehicle does not fit within the inventory exception to the warrant requirement.

1989In re Keller (App. 1940), 32 Ohio Law Abs. 624, 625 .