106 Ohio opinions name it 4 courts 1978–2025 15 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Welsh v. Wisconsingreen2 sentences2025“The police ‘bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests.’ ” State v. Hodge, 2011-Ohio-633 , ¶ 24 (2d Dist.), quoting Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 750 (1984). {¶ 16} Here, the State attempts to justify the warrantless entry under the exigent circumstances exception by claiming that Bradley had started the car. 2008No. 98-L-036, 1999 WL 689934 . {¶ 23} “The exigent circumstances exception will permit police to execute a warrantless search or seizure providing that before the search or seizure ensues, there is probable cause and the presence of an exigent circumstance.” Id., citing State v. Robinette (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 243 , 685 N.E.2d 762 . “[T]he burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrant-less home entries.” Id., citing Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984), 466 U.S. 740, 750 , 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 80 L.Ed.2d 73 | 8 | 25 |
United States v. Donald P. Rohriggreen2 sentences2025“The exigent-circumstances exception has been recognized in situations of hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, imminent destruction of evidence, the need to prevent a suspect's escape, and risk of danger to the police and others.” State v. Methvin, supra, at ¶ 22, citing United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1515 (6th Cir.1996). {¶30} Another subset of the exigent-circumstances category is the emergency-aid exception. 2016United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1515 (6th Cir.1996). {¶20} Another subset of the exigent-circumstances category is the emergency-aid exception. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2013Montgomery No. 21892, 2007-Ohio-4329, ¶ 10 . {¶ 25} Finally, under the exigent circumstances exception, “[b]ecause marijuana and other narcotics are easily and quickly hidden or destroyed, a warrantless search [of an individual’s person] may be justified to preserve evidence. * * *.” State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St. 3d 47, 52 , 2000-Ohio-10 , 734 N.E.2d 804 . {¶ 26} Greene directs our attention to State v. Troutman, 3d Dist. 2013Montgomery No. 21892, 2007-Ohio-4329, ¶ 10 . {¶ 25} Finally, under the exigent circumstances exception, “[b]ecause marijuana and other narcotics are easily and quickly hidden or destroyed, a warrantless search [of an individual’s person] may be justified to preserve evidence. * * *.” State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St. 3d 47, 52 , 2000-Ohio-10 , 734 N.E.2d 804 . {¶ 26} Greene directs our attention to State v. Troutman, 3d Dist. | 4 | 13 |
Kirk v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2020State v. Penn, 61 Ohio St.3d 720, 723 , 576 N.E.2d 790, 792 (1991).1 {¶11} “The exigent circumstances doctrine requires that, in the absence of a search warrant, probable cause plus exigent circumstances are required to effectuate a warrantless entry of a home.” Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 637 , 122 S.Ct. 2458 , 153 L.Ed.2d 599 (2002). 2020State v. Penn, 61 Ohio St.3d 720, 723 , 576 N.E.2d 790, 792 (1991).1 {¶11} “The exigent circumstances doctrine requires that, in the absence of a search warrant, probable cause plus exigent circumstances are required to effectuate a warrantless entry of a home.” Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 637 , 122 S.Ct. 2458 , 153 L.Ed.2d 599 (2002). | 3 | 8 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2014See State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 51-52 , 2000-Ohio-10 , 734 N.E.2d 804 (finding search of a defendant’s person was justified where the officer smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle and on the defendant); State v. Douglas, 3d Dist. 2013Montgomery No. 21892, 2007-Ohio-4329, ¶ 10 . {¶ 25} Finally, under the exigent circumstances exception, “[b]ecause marijuana and other narcotics are easily and quickly hidden or destroyed, a warrantless search [of an individual’s person] may be justified to preserve evidence. * * *.” State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St. 3d 47, 52 , 2000-Ohio-10 , 734 N.E.2d 804 . {¶ 26} Greene directs our attention to State v. Troutman, 3d Dist. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2022“Generally, the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement can apply when the delay associated with obtaining a warrant would result in endangering police officers or other individuals, or would result in concealment or destruction of evidence.” State v. Johnson, 187 Ohio App.3d 322 , 2010-Ohio-1790 , 931 N.E.2d 1162, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). 2022“Generally, the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement can apply when the delay associated with obtaining a warrant would result in endangering police officers or other individuals, or would result in concealment or destruction of evidence.” State v. Johnson, 187 Ohio App.3d 322 , 2010-Ohio-1790 , 931 N.E.2d 1162, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). | 3 | 3 |
McDonald v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011Generally, to justify a warrantless search, there must be “compelling reasons” or exceptional circumstances to qualify as an exigent-circumstances exception, Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d at 52 , 734 N.E.2d 804 , citing McDonald v. United States (1948), 335 U.S. 451, 454 , 69 S.Ct. 191 , 93 L.Ed. 153 , or imminent danger that evidence will be lost or destroyed. 2011Generally, to justify a warrantless search, there must be “compelling reasons” or exceptional circumstances to qualify as an exigent-circumstances exception, Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d at 52 , 734 N.E.2d 804 , citing McDonald v. United States (1948), 335 U.S. 451, 454 , 69 S.Ct. 191 , 93 L.Ed. 153 , or imminent danger that evidence will be lost or destroyed. | 2 | 9 |
Brigham City v. Stuartgreen2 sentences2018Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U.S. 398 , 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). {¶ 16} "The exigent circumstances doctrine requires probable cause plus exigent circumstances to effectuate a warrantless entry of [a] home." State v. Wilson , 12th Dist. 2018Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U.S. 398 , 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). {¶ 16} "The exigent circumstances doctrine requires probable cause plus exigent circumstances to effectuate a warrantless entry of [a] home." State v. Wilson , 12th Dist. | 2 | 5 |
Michigan v. Tylergreen2 sentences2025See State v. Applegate, 68 Ohio St.3d 348, 349 (1994), quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (“A warrantless police entry into a private residence is not unlawful if made upon exigent circumstances, a ‘specifically established and well-delineated exceptio[n]’ to the search warrant requirement.”); State v. Buck, 2017-Ohio-8242, ¶ 19-20 (1st Dist.), quoting Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978) (“Where exigent circumstances exist, a warrantless search is reasonable because ‘there is a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.’”). 2016The “overarching principle” is that, “if there is a ‘compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant,’ the warrant requirement may be excused.” Missouri v. McNeely, __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1570 (2013), quoting Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978). 5 {¶8} At the suppression hearing, the State argued that the warrantless entry of Mr. Linder’s house fell within the exigent circumstances exception, other times known as the community-caretaking exception. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Buckgreen2 sentences2024We must accept the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by competent and credible evidence, but we review the court’s legal conclusions de novo.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Buck, 2017-Ohio-8242 , 100 N.E.3d 118, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.). {¶16} In Buck, we explained the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement: Warrants are generally required to search a person’s home or his person unless the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 2024We must accept the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by competent and credible evidence, but we review the court’s legal conclusions de novo.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Buck, 2017-Ohio-8242 , 100 N.E.3d 118, ¶ 6 (1st Dist.). {¶16} In Buck, we explained the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement: Warrants are generally required to search a person’s home or his person unless the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Brewstergreen2 sentences2022See State v. Brewster, 157 Ohio App.3d 342 , 2004- Ohio-2722, 811 N.E.2d 162, ¶ 31-32 (1st Dist.) (holding that the warrantless seizure of evidence was permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment where law enforcement officers took only that action which “was necessary to preserve the evidence, and no more”). {¶ 57} Prior to Hudson’s admissions, Sweigart was unaware where the evidence was located and therefore could not have obtained a search warrant for Hudson’s phone in advance of the interview. 2022See State v. Brewster, 157 Ohio App.3d 342 , 2004- Ohio-2722, 811 N.E.2d 162, ¶ 31-32 (1st Dist.) (holding that the warrantless seizure of evidence was permissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment where law enforcement officers took only that action which “was necessary to preserve the evidence, and no more”). {¶ 57} Prior to Hudson’s admissions, Sweigart was unaware where the evidence was located and therefore could not have obtained a search warrant for Hudson’s phone in advance of the interview. | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Patricia Younggreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Ronald Tobin, Clifford Roger Ackerson, United States of America v. Ronald Tobingreen | 2 | 2 |
| Cramer v. Skinnergreen | 2 | 2 |
| Fruhwirth v. Baltimore City Police Departmentgreen | 2 | 2 |
Mincey v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2017Under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, "the exigencies of [a] situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-394 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 (1978). 2017Under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, "the exigencies of [a] situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-394 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 (1978). | 1 | 8 |
Katz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007The state, for its part, argues that Detective House had a right to be on Peterson’s property to execute the knock-and-advise and therefore that his observations were made in plain view and gave him grounds to conduct an immediate search of Peterson’s home to apprehend the person he saw in the basement carrying suspected drugs under the exigent-circumstances exception. {¶ 12} Analysis of Fourth Amendment law is primarily focused on whether a person has a “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.” Katz, 389 U.S. at 360 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (Harlan, J., concurring 2007The state, for its part, argues that Detective House had a right to be on Peterson’s property to execute the knock-and-advise and therefore that his observations were made in plain view and gave him grounds to conduct an immediate search of Peterson’s home to apprehend the person he saw in the basement carrying suspected drugs under the exigent-circumstances exception. {¶ 12} Analysis of Fourth Amendment law is primarily focused on whether a person has a “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.” Katz, 389 U.S. at 360 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (Harlan, J., concurring | 1 | 4 |
State v. Applegategreen2 sentences2008Mincey v. Arizona (1978), 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 ; United States v. McConney (C.A.9, 1984), 728 F.2d 1195 ; State v. Price (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 464 , 731 N.E.2d 280 ; State v. Applegate (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 348 , 626 N.E.2d 942 ; State v. Overholser (July 25, 1997), Clark App. No. 96CA0073, 1997 WL 451473 ; State v. Sladeck (1998), 132 Ohio App.3d 86 , 724 N.E.2d 488 . {¶ 49} The trial court did not rely on the exigent-circumstances exception when it denied Sharpe’s motion to suppress, except to the extent that the purpose of a “protective sweep” is also within the s 2008Mincey v. Arizona (1978), 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 ; United States v. McConney (C.A.9, 1984), 728 F.2d 1195 ; State v. Price (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 464 , 731 N.E.2d 280 ; State v. Applegate (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 348 , 626 N.E.2d 942 ; State v. Overholser (July 25, 1997), Clark App. No. 96CA0073, 1997 WL 451473 ; State v. Sladeck (1998), 132 Ohio App.3d 86 , 724 N.E.2d 488 . {¶ 49} The trial court did not rely on the exigent-circumstances exception when it denied Sharpe’s motion to suppress, except to the extent that the purpose of a “protective sweep” is also within the s | 1 | 3 |
Ker v. Californiagreen2 sentences2014The exigent circumstances exception justifies a warrantless entry into a residence in certain situations, including when "immediate entry is necessary to stop the imminent loss, removal, or destruction of evidence or contraband." State v. Karle, 144 Ohio App.3d 125, 131 (1st Dist. 2001), citing Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 39-40 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 (1963). 2014The exigent circumstances exception justifies a warrantless entry into a residence in certain situations, including when "immediate entry is necessary to stop the imminent loss, removal, or destruction of evidence or contraband." State v. Karle, 144 Ohio App.3d 125, 131 (1st Dist. 2001), citing Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 39-40 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 (1963). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Penngreen2 sentences2023See State v. Penn, 61 Ohio St.3d 720, 723-24 (1991) (listing the judicially recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement). 2020State v. Penn, 61 Ohio St.3d 720, 723 , 576 N.E.2d 790, 792 (1991).1 {¶11} “The exigent circumstances doctrine requires that, in the absence of a search warrant, probable cause plus exigent circumstances are required to effectuate a warrantless entry of a home.” Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 637 , 122 S.Ct. 2458 , 153 L.Ed.2d 599 (2002). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sladeckgreen2 sentences2008Mincey v. Arizona (1978), 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 ; United States v. McConney (C.A.9, 1984), 728 F.2d 1195 ; State v. Price (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 464 , 731 N.E.2d 280 ; State v. Applegate (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 348 , 626 N.E.2d 942 ; State v. Overholser (July 25, 1997), Clark App. No. 96CA0073, 1997 WL 451473 ; State v. Sladeck (1998), 132 Ohio App.3d 86 , 724 N.E.2d 488 . {¶ 49} The trial court did not rely on the exigent-circumstances exception when it denied Sharpe’s motion to suppress, except to the extent that the purpose of a “protective sweep” is also within the s 2008Mincey v. Arizona (1978), 437 U.S. 385 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 ; United States v. McConney (C.A.9, 1984), 728 F.2d 1195 ; State v. Price (1999), 134 Ohio App.3d 464 , 731 N.E.2d 280 ; State v. Applegate (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 348 , 626 N.E.2d 942 ; State v. Overholser (July 25, 1997), Clark App. No. 96CA0073, 1997 WL 451473 ; State v. Sladeck (1998), 132 Ohio App.3d 86 , 724 N.E.2d 488 . {¶ 49} The trial court did not rely on the exigent-circumstances exception when it denied Sharpe’s motion to suppress, except to the extent that the purpose of a “protective sweep” is also within the s | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Letsche, Unpublished Decision (12-9-2003)green | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Whitfieldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Howardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Toledo v. Powellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Errol MacDonaldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Whirlpool Corp. v. Industrial Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Shoultsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Reillygreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Kenneth Erb, Mark C. Perschbacher, John E. Lavell, Michael S. Mosleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stone v. City of Stowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maryland v. Buiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Hunter Lee Williams Nicholas Edward George and Geoffrey Hillman Leekgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Christygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Missouri v. McNeelygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Karlegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Parma v. Jackson
neutral
2 sentences2007"The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies when the police have a reasonable basis to believe someone inside the premises requires immediate aid." Id., citing Parma v. Jackson (1989), 58 Ohio App.3d 17 , 18 , 568 N.E.2d 702 . 2007"The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement applies when the police have a reasonable basis to believe someone inside the premises requires immediate aid." Id., citing Parma v. Jackson (1989), 58 Ohio App.3d 17 , 18 , 568 N.E.2d 702 . | 8 | 1996–2007 |
Payton v. New York
green
2 sentences2024Payton, 445 U.S. at 583 . -7- Case No. 13-23-24 {¶16} “‘Whether exigent circumstances are present is determined through an objective test that looks at the totality of the circumstances confronting the police officers at the time of the entry.’” State v. Reilly, 3d Dist. 2007No. 21612, 2004-Ohio-827 , at ¶ 10, citing Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573 , 590 . {¶ 7} The exigent circumstances doctrine states that both probable cause and exigent circumstances are required to effectuate a warrantless entry of a home. | 4 | 2005–2024 |
State v. Sheppard
green
2 sentences2007"The scope of the exigent circumstances exception must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies that justify the entry, and the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to *Page 9 demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests." State v. Sheppard (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 135 , 140-141 , quoting Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984), 466 U.S. 740 , 749-750 . 2006Furthermore, the scope of the exigent circumstances exception "must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies that justify the entry, and `the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests.'" State v. Sheppard (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 135 , 140-141 , quoting Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984), 466 U.S. 740 , 749-750 ; Blanchester v. Hester (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 815 , 818 . {¶ 39} We have previously found that, in determining whether the totality of the facts and circumstances known to an officer give rise to a reasonable be | 4 | 2006–2008 |
Lewis L. Wayne v. United States
green
2 sentences2025Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 585 . “ ‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’ ” Mincey v. Arizona (1978), 437 U.S. 385, 392-393 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 300 , quoting Wayne v. United States (C.A.D.C.1963), 318 F.2d 205, 212 , certiorari denied (1963), 375 U.S. 860 , 84 S.Ct. 125 , 11 L.Ed.2d 86 . 2007C. 234, 241, 318 F.2d 205 , 212 . {¶ 22} The scope of the exigent circumstances exception must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies that justify the entry, and the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests. | 3 | 2002–2025 |
State v. Wilson, Unpublished Decision (1-29-2007)
green
2 sentences2018Clinton No. CA2006-03-008, 2007-Ohio-353 , 2007 WL 210367 , ¶ 22. 2017Clinton No. CA2006-03-008, 2007-Ohio-353, ¶ 22 . "'Probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances known to the officer warrant a prudent man in believing that [an] offense has - 11 - Brown CA2016-08-016 been committed.'" State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122 , 2009-Ohio-6179, ¶ 73 , quoting Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102 , 80 S.Ct. 168 (1959). | 3 | 2008–2018 |
State v. Pape, Unpublished Decision (9-2-2005)
neutral
2 sentences2013Ashtabula No. 2004-A-0044, 2005-Ohio-4657, ¶ 23 ; State v. Sharpe, 174 Ohio App.3d 498 , 2008-Ohio-267 , 882 N.E.2d 960, ¶ 48 (2nd Dist.) (exigent circumstances are present when “someone inside [a home] poses a danger to the police officer’s safety”). 2013Ashtabula No. 2004-A-0044, 2005-Ohio-4657, ¶19 , citing Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 637 (2002). | 3 | 2007–2013 |
Cupp v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 52, citing Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 , 93 S.Ct. 2000 , 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973); see also, McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 , 69 S.Ct. 191 , 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948), South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976), and Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 41-42 , 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1634 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). 2012Id. at 52, citing Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 , 93 S.Ct. 2000 , 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973); see also, McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 , 69 S.Ct. 191 , 93 L.Ed. 153 (1948), South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976), and Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 41-42 , 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1634 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963). | 3 | 2005–2012 |
United States v. Francisco Sangineto-Miranda, (87-5667) Luray Betts, (87-5668) Enrique Vargas, (87-5711) & Benjamin Nelson, (87-5712)
green
2 sentences2011State v. Baker & Bakey (1991), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 60352 and 60353, citing United States v. Sangineto-Miranda (C.A.6, 1988), 859 F.2d 1501, 1512 . 2007United States v. Sangineto-Miranda (C.A.6,1988), 859 F.2d 1501 , 1511 fn. 6); State v. Pape , Ashtabula App. No. 2004-A-0044, 2005-Ohio-4657 , ¶ 19 . | 3 | 1999–2011 |
City of Cleveland v. Shields
green
2 sentences2008No. 98 CA 23, 1999 WL 402222 , in an almost apposite case, the Fourth District found the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement equally unpersuasive and cogently stated: “The reasoning behind the ‘hot pursuit’ exception to the warrant requirement is that a person should not be able to avoid arrest simply by fleeing from a public place to a private place.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 1999 WL 402222 , at *5, citing Cleveland v. Shields (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 118, 121-122 , 663 N.E.2d 726 ; State v. Lomak (Mar. 11, 1999), 10th Dist. 2008No. 98 CA 23, 1999 WL 402222 , in an almost apposite case, the Fourth District found the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement equally unpersuasive and cogently stated: “The reasoning behind the ‘hot pursuit’ exception to the warrant requirement is that a person should not be able to avoid arrest simply by fleeing from a public place to a private place.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 1999 WL 402222 , at *5, citing Cleveland v. Shields (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 118, 121-122 , 663 N.E.2d 726 ; State v. Lomak (Mar. 11, 1999), 10th Dist. | 3 | 1999–2008 |
Horton v. California
green
2 sentences2005Horton v. California (1990), 496 U.S. 134 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; State v. Willoughby (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 562 , 567 , 611 N.E.2d 937 . {¶ 17} One such exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent-circumstances exception which permits officers to act quickly, without a warrant, to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. 2004Such a result is directly contrary to usual Fourth Amendment analysis, which focuses on unreasonableness and official abuse. {¶ 31} Significantly, the court in MacDonald , citing Horton v. California (1990), 496 U.S. 128 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , expressed its view that it was immaterial to the objective inquiry whether the officers involved were "interested" in having the suspect react in a way that provided them exigent circumstances. | 3 | 2004–2005 |
State v. McGettrick
green
2 sentences2005See State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 , 52 , 2000-Ohio-10 , 734 N.E.2d 804 ; State v. McGettrick (1988), 40 Ohio App.3d 25 , 323-3 , 531 N.E.2d 755 ; State v. Hatcher (Sept. 3, 1999), 1st Dist. 2005See State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 , 52 , 2000-Ohio-10 , 734 N.E.2d 804 ; State v. McGettrick (1988), 40 Ohio App.3d 25 , 323-3 , 531 N.E.2d 755 ; State v. Hatcher (Sept. 3, 1999), 1st Dist. | 3 | 2004–2005 |
State v. Willoughby
green
2 sentences2005Horton v. California (1990), 496 U.S. 134 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; State v. Willoughby (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 562 , 567 , 611 N.E.2d 937 . {¶ 17} One such exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent-circumstances exception which permits officers to act quickly, without a warrant, to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. 2005Horton v. California (1990), 496 U.S. 134 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 ; State v. Willoughby (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 562 , 567 , 611 N.E.2d 937 . {¶ 17} One such exception to the warrant requirement is the exigent-circumstances exception which permits officers to act quickly, without a warrant, to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence. | 3 | 1996–2005 |
State v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2023The State of Ohio argues, and we agree, that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified by the exigent circumstances exception to the general search warrant requirement. {¶32} A well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement is where exigent circumstances or an emergency exists, which is sometimes also referred to as the “emergency-aid exception” or the “community-caretaking exception.” State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325 , 2012-Ohio-1008, ¶ 15 . 2023The State of Ohio argues, and we agree, that the warrantless entry into the apartment was justified by the exigent circumstances exception to the general search warrant requirement. {¶32} A well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement is where exigent circumstances or an emergency exists, which is sometimes also referred to as the “emergency-aid exception” or the “community-caretaking exception.” State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325 , 2012-Ohio-1008, ¶ 15 . | 2 | 2016–2023 |
| State v. Frye, 2007-A-0023 (12-21-2007) green | 2 | 2016–2017 |
| State v. White green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Robinson green | 2 | 1999–2007 |
| State v. Jenkins green | 2 | 1999–2006 |
| United States v. Luis Raul Aquino green | 2 | 2004–2004 |
| City of Middleburg Heights v. Theiss green | 2 | 1992–1999 |
| Wayne v. United States green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Thompson v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Lee v. Northwestern R. R. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Byrd green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Carpenter v. United States green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Runyon neutral | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Segura v. United States green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Fletcher green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Kentucky v. King green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| California v. Carney green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| United States v. Rhiger green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| United States v. Frank Anthony Spinelli green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| United States v. Sean Randall Wilson green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975 green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Baron v. Meloni green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Hiegel v. Hill green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Gleason v. United States green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Schneider green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Henry v. United States green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Perez green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Armbruster neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.