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.
7 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maryland v. Garrisongreen1 sentence2023By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit.” Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987); see also Ohio Constitution, Article 1, Section 14. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard J. Leary, and F.L. Kleinberg & Co.green1 sentence2021"Moreover, when a reviewing court determines that a warrant should not have been issued, it must then determine whether the good-faith exception applies, and that question is a question of law, subject to de novo review by the appellate court." Id., citing United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592, 606 (10th Cir.1988). {¶ 22} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violate | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2021See State v. Banks- Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 , 2018-Ohio-201 , 96 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Jones, 143 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2015-Ohio-483 , 387 N.E.3d 123 , ¶ 12. 28. {¶ 61} The CSLI sought by police, in this case, was neither a person nor a place, but instead, data collected and stored by a third-party cell phone service provider. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Banks-Harveygreen2 sentences2021See State v. Banks- Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 , 2018-Ohio-201 , 96 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Jones, 143 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2015-Ohio-483 , 387 N.E.3d 123 , ¶ 12. 28. {¶ 61} The CSLI sought by police, in this case, was neither a person nor a place, but instead, data collected and stored by a third-party cell phone service provider. 2021See State v. Banks- Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 , 2018-Ohio-201 , 96 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Jones, 143 Ohio St.3d 266 , 2015-Ohio-483 , 387 N.E.3d 123 , ¶ 12. 28. {¶ 61} The CSLI sought by police, in this case, was neither a person nor a place, but instead, data collected and stored by a third-party cell phone service provider. | 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. Smith
green
2 sentences2025“The very nature of the questions presented requires a case-by-case fact-driven analysis.” State v. Castagnola, 2015-Ohio- 1565, ¶ 32, citing State v. Smith, 2009-Ohio-6426, ¶ 14 . {¶ 8} “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution requir[e] that a warrant only be issued if probable cause for the warrant is demonstrated through an oath or affidavit.” State v. Robinson, 2004-Ohio- 5281, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.) “While a probable-cause determination for an arrest warrant is similar in nature to that for a search warrant, a search-warrant inquir 2021"The very nature of the questions presented requires a case-by-case fact-driven analysis." Id., citing State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2009- Ohio-6426, ¶ 14. | 5 | 2015–2025 |
State v. Castagnola
green
2 sentences2023“The very nature of the questions presented 5 requires a case-by-case fact-driven analysis.” State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2015-Ohio- 1565, ¶ 32. {¶12} “The Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment categorically prohibits the issuance of any warrant except one ‘particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.’ The manifest purpose of this particularity requirement was to prevent general searches. 2021Furthermore, as the review is a mixed question of law and fact, it is necessarily “a case-by-case fact-driven analysis.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Castagnola, 145 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2015-Ohio-1565 , 46 N.E.3d 638, ¶ 32 . {¶ 60} The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” requiring a warrant based on probable cause “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution provide | 2 | 2021–2023 |
State v. Shaskus
green
2 sentences2022Shaskus, 2016-Ohio-7942, ¶ 26 . 2022Shaskus, 2016-Ohio-7942, at ¶ 26 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |