staleness analysis in Ohio

2013No. CA2006-03-055, 2007-Ohio-1890, ¶ 43 ; State v. Thompson, 110 Ohio Misc.2d 139, 145-146 , 745 N.E.2d 1159 (C.P.2000). {¶18} Similarly, federal courts addressing challenges to search warrants in child pornography cases, particularly those involving images stored on a computer, typically employ a staleness analysis sensitive to technology and to the particular criminal activity at issue.

2013No. CA2006-03-055, 2007-Ohio-1890, ¶ 43 ; State v. Thompson, 110 Ohio Misc.2d 139, 145-146 , 745 N.E.2d 1159 (C.P.2000). {¶18} Similarly, federal courts addressing challenges to search warrants in child pornography cases, particularly those involving images stored on a computer, typically employ a staleness analysis sensitive to technology and to the particular criminal activity at issue.

2013No. CA2006-03-055, 2007-Ohio-1890, ¶ 43 ; State v. Thompson, 110 Ohio Misc.2d 139, 145-146 , 745 N.E.2d 1159 (C.P.2000). {¶18} Similarly, federal courts addressing challenges to search warrants in child pornography cases, particularly those involving images stored on a computer, typically employ a staleness analysis sensitive to technology and to the particular criminal activity at issue.

2009No. 2006-03-055, 2007-Ohio-1890 at ¶ 43 ; State v. Thompson (C.P. 2000), 110 Ohio Misc.2d 139 , 145-146 . *Page 14 {¶ 50} Similarly, Federal courts addressing challenges to search warrants in child pornography cases, particularly those involving images stored on a computer, typically employ a staleness analysis sensitive to technology and to the particular criminal activity at issue.

1999Accord Illinois v. Gates, supra, at 237, fn. 10 (although in a particular case it may not be easy to determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants) With regard to defendant's contention that the information was stale, the court in State v. Carlson (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 591 , 600-601 , stated: Under the staleness doctrine, "staleness is not measured merely on the basis of the maturity of the information." United States v. Bucuvalas (C.

1995Under the staleness doctrine, “staleness is not measured merely on the basis of *601 the maturity of the information.” United States v. Bucuvalas (C.A.1, 1992), 970 F.2d 937 , 940.

1999Consequently, "there is no arbitrary time limit on how old information [supporting probable cause] can be." State v. Jones (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 522 , 526 , 595 N.E.2d 485 , 488 .

1999Consequently, "there is no arbitrary time limit on how old information [supporting probable cause] can be." State v. Jones (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 522 , 526 , 595 N.E.2d 485 , 488 .

2024Lucas No. L-23-1035, 2023-Ohio-4344, ¶ 17 , “In United States v. Redmond, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals identified factors for the staleness analysis, including: the character of the crime (a chance encounter in the night or a regenerating conspiracy?), the criminal (nomadic or entrenched?), the thing to be seized (perishable and easily transferable or of enduring utility to its holder?), [and] the place to be searched (mere criminal form of convenience or secure operational base?) United States v. Redmond, 475 Fed.

2023The court thus concluded that “‘the same time limitations that have been applied to more fleeting crimes do not control the staleness inquiry for child pornography.’” Id., quoting United States v. Paull, 551 F.3d 516, 522 (6th Cir.2009). {¶37} Applying these factors led the Frechette court to conclude that the 16-month-old information regarding the defendant’s one-month subscription was not stale information.

2023In analyzing the staleness factors, the court observed that “child pornography is not a fleeting crime,” and “‘is generally carried out in the secrecy of the home and over a long period.’” Id., quoting United States v. Paull, 551 F.3d 516, 522 (6th Cir.2009).

2020Cuyahoga No. 99184, 2013-Ohio-3001, ¶ 18 , citing United States v. Miller, 450 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1335 (M.D.Fla. 2006).

1913In Badger v. Badger, 69 U. S. (2 Wall.) 87 , it is said: “There is a defense, peculiar to courts of equity, founded on lapse of time and the staleness of the claim where no statute of limitations governs the case.

1913In such cases courts of equity act upon their own inherent doctrine of discouraging, for the peace of society, antiquated demands, and refuse to interfere where there has been gross laches in the assertion of adverse rights.” And in Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co., 96 Tenn. 252 [ 34 S. W. 209 ; 31 L.

1913In such cases courts of equity act upon their own inherent doctrine of discouraging, for the peace of society, antiquated demands, and refuse to interfere where there has been gross laches in the assertion of adverse rights.” And in Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co., 96 Tenn. 252 [ 34 S. W. 209 ; 31 L.