stop-and-frisk doctrine in Ohio

2014Ashland County, Case No. 13 COA 023 6 {¶17} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the warrant requirement: “(a) [a] search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; or (f) the plain-view doctrine,” State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975, 19 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 , 482 N.E.2d 606 (1985), certiorari denied 474 U.S. 1058 , 106 S.Ct. 800 , 88 L.Ed.2d 777 (1986); or (g) an “administrative search,” Stone v. Stow, 64 Ohio S

2013The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the warrant requirement: “(a) [a] search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; or (f) the plain-view doctrine,” State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975, 19 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 , 482 N.E.2d 606 (1985), certiorari denied 474 U.S. 1058 , 106 S.Ct. 800 , 88 L.Ed.2d 777 (1986); or (g) an “administrative search,” Stone v. Stow, 64 Ohio St.3d 156, 164, fn. 4 ., 593 N.E.2d 294 (1992

2024The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the general rule requiring search warrants: (a) a search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; (f) the plain view doctrine; and (g) administrative search State v. Urdiales, 2015-Ohio-3632, ¶ 28 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. City of Stow, 64 Ohio St.3d 156, fn. 4 (1992). {¶14} The “stop-and-frisk doctrine” originates in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

2017The burden would have then shifted to the state to go forward with evidence that the search came within the so-called stop and frisk exception as pronounced by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , [ 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)].

2019Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). {¶19} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the search warrant requirement: (a) [a] search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search and the presence of exigent circumstances; (f) the plain-view doctrine; or (g) an administrative search.

2019Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct. 507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). {¶19} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the search warrant requirement: (a) [a] search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search and the presence of exigent circumstances; (f) the plain-view doctrine; or (g) an administrative search.

2014Ashland County, Case No. 13 COA 023 6 {¶17} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the warrant requirement: “(a) [a] search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; or (f) the plain-view doctrine,” State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975, 19 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 , 482 N.E.2d 606 (1985), certiorari denied 474 U.S. 1058 , 106 S.Ct. 800 , 88 L.Ed.2d 777 (1986); or (g) an “administrative search,” Stone v. Stow, 64 Ohio S

2013The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the warrant requirement: “(a) [a] search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; or (f) the plain-view doctrine,” State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975, 19 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 , 482 N.E.2d 606 (1985), certiorari denied 474 U.S. 1058 , 106 S.Ct. 800 , 88 L.Ed.2d 777 (1986); or (g) an “administrative search,” Stone v. Stow, 64 Ohio St.3d 156, 164, fn. 4 ., 593 N.E.2d 294 (1992

2014Ashland County, Case No. 13 COA 023 6 {¶17} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the warrant requirement: “(a) [a] search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; or (f) the plain-view doctrine,” State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975, 19 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 , 482 N.E.2d 606 (1985), certiorari denied 474 U.S. 1058 , 106 S.Ct. 800 , 88 L.Ed.2d 777 (1986); or (g) an “administrative search,” Stone v. Stow, 64 Ohio S

2013The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the warrant requirement: “(a) [a] search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; or (f) the plain-view doctrine,” State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975, 19 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 , 482 N.E.2d 606 (1985), certiorari denied 474 U.S. 1058 , 106 S.Ct. 800 , 88 L.Ed.2d 777 (1986); or (g) an “administrative search,” Stone v. Stow, 64 Ohio St.3d 156, 164, fn. 4 ., 593 N.E.2d 294 (1992

2008As held in State v. Applegate (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 348 , 1994-Ohio-356 : "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.' Katz 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.E

2008As held in State v. Applegate (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 348 , 1994-Ohio-356 : "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.' Katz 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.E

1996In Penn , the Supreme Court recognized the warrant requirement exceptions as "(a) * * * search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; or (f) the plain view doctrine.” Id., 61 Ohio St.3d at 723-724 , 576 N.E.2d at 793 . 3 .

1992In State v. Penn (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 720 , 576 N.E.2d 790 , we listed the “judicially recognized exceptions” to the search warrant requirement: “ ‘(a) A search incident to a lawful arrest; “ ‘(b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; “ ‘(c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; “ ‘(d) hot pursuit; “ ‘(e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; or “ ‘(f) the plain view doctrine.” Id. at 723-724 , 576 N.E.2d at 793 , quoting State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975 (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 , 19 OBR 42, 43, 482 N.E.2d 606, 608 .

2004(Quotations and citations omitted). {¶ 17} "[E]xigent circumstances generally must include the necessity for immediate action that will `protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury,' or will protect a governmental interest which outweighs the individual's constitutionally protected privacy interest." Id., citing Mincey v. Arizona (1978), 437 U.S. 385 , 392-393 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 , certiorari denied (1984), 469 U.S. 1040 , 105 S.Ct. 521 , 83 L.Ed.2d 409 ; U.S. v. Rohrig (C.A. 6, 1996), 98 F.3d 1506 , 1515-18 . {¶ 18} While the City has not challenged the factual determination

1999Although there is no precise list of all the exigent circumstances that might justify a warrantless search, exigent circumstances generally must include the necessity for immediate action that will “protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury,” Mincey v. Arizona (1978), 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 300 , or will protect a governmental interest that outweighs the individual’s constitutionally protected privacy interest, see Rohrig, 98 F.3d at 1517-1518 .

1996In Penn , the Supreme Court recognized the warrant requirement exceptions as "(a) * * * search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; or (f) the plain view doctrine.” Id., 61 Ohio St.3d at 723-724 , 576 N.E.2d at 793 . 3 .

1992In State v. Penn (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 720 , 576 N.E.2d 790 , we listed the “judicially recognized exceptions” to the search warrant requirement: “ ‘(a) A search incident to a lawful arrest; “ ‘(b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; “ ‘(c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; “ ‘(d) hot pursuit; “ ‘(e) probable cause to search, and the presence of exigent circumstances; or “ ‘(f) the plain view doctrine.” Id. at 723-724 , 576 N.E.2d at 793 , quoting State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975 (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 , 19 OBR 42, 43, 482 N.E.2d 606, 608 .

2024“The rule permits the State to remove the taint from ill-gotten evidence by establishing that the unlawful act from which the evidence resulted was ‘not a sine qua non of its discovery.’” State v. Barnes, 2017-Ohio-7284, ¶ 12 (3d Dist.), quoting U.S. v. Griffin, 502 F.2d 959 (6th Cir. 1974). {¶31} For this exception to the exclusionary rule to apply, the State must establish “(1) that the police possessed the leads making the discovery inevitable at the time of the misconduct and (2) that the police were actively pursuing an alternative line of investigation prior to the misconduct.” Barnes at

2022“The state bears the burden of proving that one of these exceptions applies in order for evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search to survive a motion to suppress.” State v. Smith, 73 Ohio App.3d 471, 475 , 597 N.E.2d 1132 (6th Dist.1991), citing State v. Kessler, 53 Ohio St.2d 204, 207 , 373 N.E.2d 1252 (1978).

2022“The state bears the burden of proving that one of these exceptions applies in order for evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search to survive a motion to suppress.” State v. Smith, 73 Ohio App.3d 471, 475 , 597 N.E.2d 1132 (6th Dist.1991), citing State v. Kessler, 53 Ohio St.2d 204, 207 , 373 N.E.2d 1252 (1978).

2022“The state bears the burden of proving that one of these exceptions applies in order for evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search to survive a motion to suppress.” State v. Smith, 73 Ohio App.3d 471, 475 , 597 N.E.2d 1132 (6th Dist.1991), citing State v. Kessler, 53 Ohio St.2d 204, 207 , 373 N.E.2d 1252 (1978).

2022“The state bears the burden of proving that one of these exceptions applies in order for evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search to survive a motion to suppress.” State v. Smith, 73 Ohio App.3d 471, 475 , 597 N.E.2d 1132 (6th Dist.1991), citing State v. Kessler, 53 Ohio St.2d 204, 207 , 373 N.E.2d 1252 (1978).

2018See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 143– 144, 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); State v. Williams, 73 Ohio St.3d 153 , 166–167, 652 N.E.2d 721 (1995). {¶18} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the search warrant requirement: (a) [a] search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable Licking County, Case No. 18 CA 00011 7 cause to search and the presence of exigent circumstances; (f) the plain-view doctrine; or (g) an administrative search.

2018See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 143– 144, 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); State v. Williams, 73 Ohio St.3d 153 , 166–167, 652 N.E.2d 721 (1995). {¶18} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized seven exceptions to the search warrant requirement: (a) [a] search incident to a lawful arrest; (b) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (c) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (d) hot pursuit; (e) probable Licking County, Case No. 18 CA 00011 7 cause to search and the presence of exigent circumstances; (f) the plain-view doctrine; or (g) an administrative search.

2017"An officer may initiate a protective search when, based on the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable suspicion the person is armed." Hines at 167, 634 N.E.2d 654 , citing State v. Bobo , 37 Ohio St.3d 177 , 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 16} In addition to the stop-and-frisk doctrine under Terry , the Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized that "consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights" is also an exception to the search warrant requirement.

2017"An officer may initiate a protective search when, based on the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable suspicion the person is armed." Hines at 167, 634 N.E.2d 654 , citing State v. Bobo , 37 Ohio St.3d 177 , 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 16} In addition to the stop-and-frisk doctrine under Terry , the Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized that "consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights" is also an exception to the search warrant requirement.

2014No. 07AP-412, 2007-Ohio-7009, ¶ 6 , citing State v. Price, 134 Ohio App.3d 464, 468 (9th Dist.1999).

2011State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975 (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 , 19 OBR 42, 482 N.E.2d 606 ; Stone v. Stow (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 156, 164 , 593 N.E.2d 294, fn. 4 ; State v. Moore (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 51 , 734 N.E.2d 804 .

2011State v. Akron Airport Post No. 8975 (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 49, 51 , 19 OBR 42, 482 N.E.2d 606 ; Stone v. Stow (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 156, 164 , 593 N.E.2d 294, fn. 4 ; State v. Moore (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 51 , 734 N.E.2d 804 .

2009Beck v. Ohio (1964), 379 U.S. 89 , 91 . "[P]robable cause does not require a prima facie showing of criminal activity; rather, the standard requires only a showing that a probability of criminal activity exists.

2009Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573 , 586-587 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 , 100 S. Ct. 1371 ; citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443 ,, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 ; State v. Welch (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 88 , 91 , 480 N.E.2d 384 . {¶ 9} The following exceptions to the search warrant requirement have been recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court: (1) a search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (3) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (4) hot pursuit; (5) probable cause to search; (6) the presence of exigent circumstances; *Page 6 and (7) the plain

2009Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573 , 586-587 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 , 100 S. Ct. 1371 ; citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443 ,, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 ; State v. Welch (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 88 , 91 , 480 N.E.2d 384 . {¶ 9} The following exceptions to the search warrant requirement have been recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court: (1) a search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (3) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (4) hot pursuit; (5) probable cause to search; (6) the presence of exigent circumstances; *Page 6 and (7) the plain

2009Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573 , 586-587 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 , 100 S. Ct. 1371 ; citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443 ,, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 ; State v. Welch (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 88 , 91 , 480 N.E.2d 384 . {¶ 9} The following exceptions to the search warrant requirement have been recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court: (1) a search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (3) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (4) hot pursuit; (5) probable cause to search; (6) the presence of exigent circumstances; *Page 6 and (7) the plain

2009Payton v. New York (1980), 445 U.S. 573 , 586-587 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 , 100 S. Ct. 1371 ; citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443 ,, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 ; State v. Welch (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 88 , 91 , 480 N.E.2d 384 . {¶ 9} The following exceptions to the search warrant requirement have been recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court: (1) a search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) consent signifying waiver of constitutional rights; (3) the stop-and-frisk doctrine; (4) hot pursuit; (5) probable cause to search; (6) the presence of exigent circumstances; *Page 6 and (7) the plain