61 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2025 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Carlsongreen2 sentences2025Generally, a law enforcement officer who stops a vehicle for a traffic violation “ ‘may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist’s driver’s license, registration and vehicle plates.’ ” State v. Phillips, 2014- No. 24AP-216 11 Ohio-5162, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Aguirre, 2003-Ohio-4909 , ¶ 36 (4th Dist.), citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 (9th Dist. 1995). {¶ 47} A lawfully detained vehicle may be subjected to a K-9 check of the vehicle’s exterior eve 2018When stopping a vehicle for a traffic violation, a law enforcement officer "may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist's driver's license, registration and vehicle plates." Aguirre at ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 (9th Dist.1995). | 9 | 31 |
City of Fairborn v. Orrickgreen2 sentences2022Summit No. 18495, 1997 WL 760693 , *2 (Nov. 5, 1997); see also Fairborn v. Orrick, 49 Ohio App.3d 94, 95 , 550 N.E.2d 488 (2d Dist.1988) (the “mere fact that a police officer has an articulable and reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop a motor vehicle does not give that police officer ‘open season’ to investigate matters not reasonably within the scope of his suspicion”). {¶22} Thus, generally, “[w]hen a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine p 2022Summit No. 18495, 1997 WL 760693 , *2 (Nov. 5, 1997); see also Fairborn v. Orrick, 49 Ohio App.3d 94, 95 , 550 N.E.2d 488 (2d Dist.1988) (the “mere fact that a police officer has an articulable and reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop a motor vehicle does not give that police officer ‘open season’ to investigate matters not reasonably within the scope of his suspicion”). {¶22} Thus, generally, “[w]hen a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine p | 8 | 8 |
Rodriguez v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, -4- therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350 , 135 S.Ct. 1609 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015), citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 , 125 S.Ct. 834 , 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005). {¶ 10} When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and perform routine proce 2024A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, -4- therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350 , 135 S.Ct. 1609 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015), citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 , 125 S.Ct. 834 , 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005). {¶ 10} When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and perform routine proce | 6 | 7 |
Whren v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016No. 03CA5, 2003-Ohio-4909 , ¶ 33, citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809 (1996). " 'The scope and duration of a routine traffic stop "must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification * * * and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." ' " Id., quoting Aguirre at ¶ 35, quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983). {¶ 12} " 'When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a c 2016No. 03CA5, 2003-Ohio-4909 , ¶ 33, citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809 (1996). " 'The scope and duration of a routine traffic stop "must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification * * * and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." ' " Id., quoting Aguirre at ¶ 35, quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983). {¶ 12} " 'When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a c | 5 | 9 |
State v. Cookgreen2 sentences2018Gallia No. 03CA5, 2003- Ohio-4909, ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 , 657 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist.1995); see also Rodriguez v. United States, -- U.S. --, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1615 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015) (ordinary inquiries incident to a traffic stop include “checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance”). “ ‘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 2018Gallia No. 03CA5, 2003- Ohio-4909, ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 , 657 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist.1995); see also Rodriguez v. United States, -- U.S. --, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1615 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015) (ordinary inquiries incident to a traffic stop include “checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance”). “ ‘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 | 3 | 4 |
Florida v. Royergreen2 sentences2020Galia No. 03CA5, 2003-Ohio-4909 , ¶ 35-36: The scope and duration of a routine traffic stop "must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification * * * and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." Florida v. Royer (1983), 460 U.S. 491, 500 , 103 S.Ct. 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 . * * * When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist's driver 2020Galia No. 03CA5, 2003-Ohio-4909 , ¶ 35-36: The scope and duration of a routine traffic stop "must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification * * * and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." Florida v. Royer (1983), 460 U.S. 491, 500 , 103 S.Ct. 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 . * * * When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist's driver | 2 | 4 |
State v. Hudson, Unpublished Decision (6-18-2004)green2 sentences2025Berry, ¶ 25; State v. Hudson, 2004-Ohio-3140, ¶ 17 (stating “[o]nce a police officer legitimately stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the driver may be detained for only as long as the officer continues to have reasonable suspicion that there has been a violation of the law). {¶17} Relatedly, the use of a drug detection canine does not generally constitute a “search”, and prior to a canine sniff an officer is not required to establish either probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that drugs are concealed in the vehicle. 2025State v. Hudson, 2004-Ohio-3140, ¶ 17 (stating “[o]nce a police officer legitimately stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the driver may be detained for only as long as the officer continues to have reasonable suspicion that there has been a violation of the law.”). {¶13} Importantly, reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of circumstances "viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” State v. Hairston, 2019-Ohio-1622, ¶10 , quoting State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-38 (1991). | 2 | 2 |
Illinois v. Caballesgreen2 sentences2024A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, -4- therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350 , 135 S.Ct. 1609 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015), citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 , 125 S.Ct. 834 , 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005). {¶ 10} When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and perform routine proce 2024A seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, -4- therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350 , 135 S.Ct. 1609 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015), citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 , 125 S.Ct. 834 , 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005). {¶ 10} When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and perform routine proce | 1 | 5 |
State v. Desman, Unpublished Decision (12-31-2003)green2 sentences2025“Once a police officer legitimately stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the driver may be detained for only as long as the officer continues to have reasonable suspicion that there has been a violation of the law.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Desman, 2003-Ohio-7248, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.). 2012Id. {¶ 20} Thus, “[o]nce a police officer legitimately stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the driver may be detained for only as long as the officer continues to have reasonable suspicion that there has been a violation of the law.” State v. Desman, Montgomery App. No. 19730, 2003-Ohio-7248, ¶26 , citation omitted. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Andrewsgreen2 sentences2025State v. Hudson, 2004-Ohio-3140, ¶ 17 (stating “[o]nce a police officer legitimately stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the driver may be detained for only as long as the officer continues to have reasonable suspicion that there has been a violation of the law.”). {¶13} Importantly, reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of circumstances "viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” State v. Hairston, 2019-Ohio-1622, ¶10 , quoting State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-38 (1991). 2005The facts must be viewed "through the eyes of a reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold." State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86 , 87-88 . {¶ 10} When Deputy Mann stopped the vehicle for a traffic violation, he knew that the occupants had purchased multiple cans of starting fluid. | 1 | 2 |
Bartoszewski v. Village of Fox Lakegreen2 sentences2012No. 03CA5, 2003-Ohio-4909 , 2003 WL 22136234 , at ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 , 647 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist.1995). 2004Gonyou ; Sagamore Hills v. Eller (Nov. 5, 1997), Summit App. No. 18495; see, also, Fairborn v. Orrick (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 94 , 95 , 550 N.E.2d 488 , 490 (stating that "the mere fact that a police officer has an articulable and reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop a motor vehicle does not give that police officer `open season' to investigate matters not reasonably within the scope of his suspicion"). {¶ 23} "When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to per | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kincaidgreen1 sentence2025“In determining if an officer completed the tasks of a traffic stop 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., citing State v. Batchili, 2007-Ohio-2204 , ¶ 12. {¶ 19} “Ohio courts do not apply a bright-line test as to a specific amount of elapsed time to determine whether a traffic stop has been unreasonably prolonged.” State v. Kincaid, 2024-Ohio-2668, ¶ 20 (4th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pryor, Unpublished Decision (5-27-2005)green2 sentences2025However, “[t]he duration of a traffic stop may last no longer than is necessary to resolve the issue that led to the original stop, absent some specific and articulable facts -9- that further detention was reasonable.” Id. at ¶ 10, citing State v. Chatton, 11 Ohio St.3d 59 (1984). {¶ 18} “When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist’s driver’s license, registration and vehicle plates.” State v. Th 2025“In determining if an officer completed the tasks of a traffic stop 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., citing State v. Batchili, 2007-Ohio-2204 , ¶ 12. {¶ 19} “Ohio courts do not apply a bright-line test as to a specific amount of elapsed time to determine whether a traffic stop has been unreasonably prolonged.” State v. Kincaid, 2024-Ohio-2668, ¶ 20 (4th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hawkins (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2021See, e.g., State v. Hawkins, 158 Ohio St.3d 194 , 2019-Ohio-4210, ¶20 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ramos
green
2 sentences2012Id. {¶ 20} Thus, “[o]nce a police officer legitimately stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the driver may be detained for only as long as the officer continues to have reasonable suspicion that there has been a violation of the law.” State v. Desman, Montgomery App. No. 19730, 2003-Ohio-7248, ¶26 , citation omitted. 2005In Ramos, we recognized that "[t]he duration of a traffic stop may last no longer than is necessary to resolve the issue that led to the original stop, absent some specific and articulable facts that further detention was reasonable." Ramos, 155 Ohio App.3d at 401 . "`When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist's driver's license, registration and vehicle plates." Id. (citations omitted). "[A] | 7 | 2004–2016 |
United States v. Sharpe
green
2 sentences2018Gallia No. 03CA5, 2003- Ohio-4909, ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 , 657 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist.1995); see also Rodriguez v. United States, -- U.S. --, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1615 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015) (ordinary inquiries incident to a traffic stop include “checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance”). “ ‘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 2018Gallia No. 03CA5, 2003- Ohio-4909, ¶ 36, citing State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 598 , 657 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist.1995); see also Rodriguez v. United States, -- U.S. --, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1615 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015) (ordinary inquiries incident to a traffic stop include “checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance”). “ ‘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 | 4 | 2004–2018 |
State v. Chatton
green
2 sentences2025However, “[t]he duration of a traffic stop may last no longer than is necessary to resolve the issue that led to the original stop, absent some specific and articulable facts -9- that further detention was reasonable.” Id. at ¶ 10, citing State v. Chatton, 11 Ohio St.3d 59 (1984). {¶ 18} “When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist’s driver’s license, registration and vehicle plates.” State v. Th 2011State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59 , * * * ; State v. Kerns (Mar. 16, 2001), Montgomery App. No. 18439. ‘When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist’s driver’s license, registration and vehicle plates. | 3 | 2003–2025 |
State v. Robinette
green
2 sentences2025“When an officer prolongs a detention to conduct a search, and the search is not related to the original purpose for the stop, the prolonged detention constitutes an illegal seizure if the officer does not have ‘articulable facts giving rise to a suspicion of some illegal activity.’” (Emphasis added.) State -19- v. Spain, 2011-Ohio-322 , ¶ 18 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 50} Here, the evidence presented at trial established that Hayes, not the officers, prolonged the traffic stop by requesting a medic. 2004The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained: "When a police officer's objective justification to continue detention of a person stopped for a traffic violation for the purpose of searching the person's vehicle is not related to the purpose of the original stop, and when that continued detention is not based on any articulable facts giving rise to a suspicion of some illegal activity justifying an extension of the detention, the continued detention to conduct a search constitutes an illegal seizure." State v. Robinette (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 234 , 685 N.E.2d 762 (paragraph one of the syllabus); see | 3 | 2003–2025 |
City of Dayton v. Erickson
green
2 sentences2012Id., citing Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , 665 N.E.2d 1091 (1996). {¶17} When a police officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the driver for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the driver's license, registration and vehicle plates. 2012Id., citing Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , 665 N.E.2d 1091 (1996). {¶17} When a police officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the driver for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the driver's license, registration and vehicle plates. | 3 | 2008–2012 |
State v. Greene
neutral
2 sentences2016No. 25577, 2013-Ohio-4516, ¶ 22 , citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005). " 'Police are not required to have reasonable suspicion that a vehicle contains drugs prior to conducting a canine sniff of the vehicle during a traffic stop, so long as the duration of the traffic stop is not extended beyond what is reasonably necessary to resolve the issue that led to the stop and issue a traffic citation.' " Id., quoting Greene at ¶ 22, citing State v. Ramos, 155 Ohio App.3d 396 , 2003- Ohio-6535 (2d Dist.). " 'If, however, the duration of the traffic stop is extended in order to bring a dru 2014No. 25577, 2013-Ohio-4516, ¶ 22 , citing Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005); State v. Ramos, 155 Ohio App.3d 396 , 2003-Ohio-6535 (2d Dist.). | 2 | 2014–2016 |
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2025State v. Jackson, 2022-Ohio-4365, ¶ 13 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Neal
green
1 sentence2025State v. Neal, 2016-Ohio-1406 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Evans
green
1 sentence2025State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405, 414 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hairston (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2025State v. Hudson, 2004-Ohio-3140, ¶ 17 (stating “[o]nce a police officer legitimately stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the driver may be detained for only as long as the officer continues to have reasonable suspicion that there has been a violation of the law.”). {¶13} Importantly, reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of circumstances "viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” State v. Hairston, 2019-Ohio-1622, ¶10 , quoting State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-38 (1991). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Civil v. Toomey
green
1 sentence2020Galia No. 03CA5, 2003-Ohio-4909 , ¶ 35-36: The scope and duration of a routine traffic stop "must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification * * * and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." Florida v. Royer (1983), 460 U.S. 491, 500 , 103 S.Ct. 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 . * * * When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist's driver | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Gates v. Leonbruno
green
1 sentence2017Id. at ¶ 30. {¶ 54} In Gates v. Leonbruno , 70 N.E.3d 1110 , 2016-Ohio-5627 (8th Dist.), the court determined that the trial court erred by concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether a law enforcement officer wantonly or recklessly pursued a vehicle for a traffic violation. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Jones, Unpublished Decision (12-16-2004)
green
1 sentence2016Washington No. 03CA61, 2004-Ohio-7280 , 2004 WL 3090198 , ¶ 22. “ ‘When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist's driver's license, registration, and vehicle plates.’ ” State v. Houston, 4th Dist. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Brown, Unpublished Decision (7-30-2004)
green
1 sentence2011A second potential issue which is present in the instant case concerns the prolonged detention of a lawfully licensed driver after the basis for the stop may have dissipated. {¶ 11} In State v. Brown, Montgomery App. No. 20336, 2004-Ohio-4058 , we stated the following: {¶ 12} “When a law enforcement officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation, the officer may detain the motorist for a period of time sufficient to issue the motorist a citation and to perform routine procedures such as a computer check on the motorist’s driver’s license, registration and vehicle plates. ‘In determining if an | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Hunter, Unpublished Decision (11-6-2006)
green
1 sentence2008No. 06CA008871, 2006-Ohio-5810 , at ¶ 14 , citing Whren , 517 U.S. at 809 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Beck v. Ohio green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
White v. Ohio Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2003Although R.C. 4511.12 "creates a legal excuse for the criminal violation" White v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 39 , 43 , 564 N.E.2d 462 and ultimately may prevent a conviction, it does not create an avenue for invalidating a traffic stop. {¶ 35} Thus, the trial court improperly concluded that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the vehicle for a traffic violation. 2003Although R.C. 4511.12 "creates a legal excuse for the criminal violation" White v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 39 , 43 , 564 N.E.2d 462 and ultimately may prevent a conviction, it does not create an avenue for invalidating a traffic stop. {¶ 35} Thus, the trial court improperly concluded that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the vehicle for a traffic violation. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Myers green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.