Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Dayton v. Ericksongreen2 sentences2008See Erickson , 76 Ohio St.3d at 11-12 ; Terry , supra. It is well-settled that a law enforcement officer possesses both reasonable suspicion and probable cause to stop a vehicle when the officer observes a traffic violation. {¶ 16} A court that is determining whether a law enforcement officer possessed reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop a vehicle must examine the "totality of the circumstances." See, e.g., United States v. Arvizu (2002), 534 U.S. 266 , 273 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 . 2007Id. {¶ 9} It has been held that if an officer observes a traffic violation, an investigatory stop is valid and cannot be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. *Page 4 Dayton v. Erikson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , 9 , 11 , 665 N.E.2d 1091 . | 2 | 6 |
State v. Taylor, 07ca11 (2-4-2008)green2 sentences2016Washington No. 07CA11, 2008-Ohio-482, ¶ 15 (“It is well-settled that a law enforcement officer possess both reasonable suspicion and probable cause to stop a vehicle when the officer observes a traffic violation.”). {¶20} Because Trooper Craft credibly testified that he observed Robinson commit two traffic violations, he was entitled to initiate the traffic stop of the vehicle regardless of whether he had another subjective or pretextual motivation for making the stop. 2. 2014Washington No. 07CA11, 2008-Ohio-482, ¶ 15 (“It is well-settled that a law enforcement officer possesses both reasonable suspicion and probable cause to stop a vehicle when the officer observes a traffic violation.”). | 2 | 3 |
Dayton v. Ericksongreen2 sentences2008State v. Cochran , Preble App. No. CA2006-10-023, 2007-Ohio-3353 , ¶ 13 ; see, e.g., Dayton v. Erickson , 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , 11 , 1996-Ohio-431 . 2007See Whren v. United States (1996), 517 U.S. 806 , 810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 ; Dayton v. 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 5 investigate a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cookgreen1 sentence2015Gallia No. 03CA5, 2003–Ohio–4909, ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 , 657 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist.1995). “ ‘In determining if an officer completed these tasks within a reasonable length of time, the court must evaluate the duration of the stop in light of the totality of the circumstances and consider whether the officer diligently conducted the investigation.’ ” Id., quoting Carlson at 598 ; see also State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 , 521– 522, 605 N.E .2d 70 (1992) (fifteen minute detention was reasonable); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 , 105 S.Ct. 1568 , 84 L.Ed.2 | 1 | 1 |
Whren v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007See Whren v. United States (1996), 517 U.S. 806 , 810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 ; Dayton v. 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 5 investigate a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. 2007See Whren v. United States (1996), 517 U.S. 806 , 810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 ; Dayton v. 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 5 investigate a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimmsgreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977), 434 U.S. 106 , 108-109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 . {¶ 26} It is well-settled that a law enforcement officer possesses both reasonable suspicion and probable cause to stop a vehicle when the officer observes a traffic violation. 2003See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977), 434 U.S. 106 , 108-109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 . {¶ 26} It is well-settled that a law enforcement officer possesses both reasonable suspicion and probable cause to stop a vehicle when the officer observes a traffic violation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Sharpe
green
2 sentences2015Gallia No. 03CA5, 2003–Ohio–4909, ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 , 657 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist.1995). “ ‘In determining if an officer completed these tasks within a reasonable length of time, the court must evaluate the duration of the stop in light of the totality of the circumstances and consider whether the officer diligently conducted the investigation.’ ” Id., quoting Carlson at 598 ; see also State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 , 521– 522, 605 N.E .2d 70 (1992) (fifteen minute detention was reasonable); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 , 105 S.Ct. 1568 , 84 L.Ed.2 2015Gallia No. 03CA5, 2003–Ohio–4909, ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 , 657 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist.1995). “ ‘In determining if an officer completed these tasks within a reasonable length of time, the court must evaluate the duration of the stop in light of the totality of the circumstances and consider whether the officer diligently conducted the investigation.’ ” Id., quoting Carlson at 598 ; see also State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 , 521– 522, 605 N.E .2d 70 (1992) (fifteen minute detention was reasonable); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 , 105 S.Ct. 1568 , 84 L.Ed.2 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Carlson
green
2 sentences2015Gallia No. 03CA5, 2003–Ohio–4909, ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 , 657 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist.1995). “ ‘In determining if an officer completed these tasks within a reasonable length of time, the court must evaluate the duration of the stop in light of the totality of the circumstances and consider whether the officer diligently conducted the investigation.’ ” Id., quoting Carlson at 598 ; see also State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 , 521– 522, 605 N.E .2d 70 (1992) (fifteen minute detention was reasonable); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 , 105 S.Ct. 1568 , 84 L.Ed.2 2015Gallia No. 03CA5, 2003–Ohio–4909, ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 , 657 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist.1995). “ ‘In determining if an officer completed these tasks within a reasonable length of time, the court must evaluate the duration of the stop in light of the totality of the circumstances and consider whether the officer diligently conducted the investigation.’ ” Id., quoting Carlson at 598 ; see also State v. Cook, 65 Ohio St.3d 516 , 521– 522, 605 N.E .2d 70 (1992) (fifteen minute detention was reasonable); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 , 105 S.Ct. 1568 , 84 L.Ed.2 | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Feerer, Ca2008-05-064 (12-22-2008)
green
1 sentence2014Warren CA2008-05- 064, 2008-Ohio-6766, ¶ 10 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
green
1 sentence2014"A noninvestigatory stop, one -4- Clinton CA2013-06-013 of two traffic stops recognized in Ohio, is reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes where an officer has probable cause to believe a criminal act has occurred, such as where an officer observes a traffic violation." Id., citing State v. Feerer, 12th Dist. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Bryson
green
1 sentence2008State v. Bryson (2001), 142 Ohio App.3d 397 , 402 . {¶ 10} A "non-investigatory stop," one of two traffic stops recognized in Ohio, is reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes where an officer has probable cause to believe a criminal act has occurred, such as where an officer observes a traffic violation. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Cochran, Ca2006-10-023 (7-2-2007)
green
1 sentence2008State v. Cochran , Preble App. No. CA2006-10-023, 2007-Ohio-3353 , ¶ 13 ; see, e.g., Dayton v. Erickson , 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , 11 , 1996-Ohio-431 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
United States v. Arvizu
red
2 sentences2008See Erickson , 76 Ohio St.3d at 11-12 ; Terry , supra. It is well-settled that a law enforcement officer possesses both reasonable suspicion and probable cause to stop a vehicle when the officer observes a traffic violation. {¶ 16} A court that is determining whether a law enforcement officer possessed reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop a vehicle must examine the "totality of the circumstances." See, e.g., United States v. Arvizu (2002), 534 U.S. 266 , 273 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 . 2008See Erickson , 76 Ohio St.3d at 11-12 ; Terry , supra. It is well-settled that a law enforcement officer possesses both reasonable suspicion and probable cause to stop a vehicle when the officer observes a traffic violation. {¶ 16} A court that is determining whether a law enforcement officer possessed reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop a vehicle must examine the "totality of the circumstances." See, e.g., United States v. Arvizu (2002), 534 U.S. 266 , 273 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
1 sentence2007Id. {¶ 9} It has been held that if an officer observes a traffic violation, an investigatory stop is valid and cannot be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. *Page 4 Dayton v. Erikson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , 9 , 11 , 665 N.E.2d 1091 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Berkemer v. McCarty
green
1 sentence2002Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), 468 U.S. 420 , 440 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.