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 3 courts 1988–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences2021"This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or - 11 - Warren CA2020-07-038 magistrate, are "per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.'" Id., quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-455 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 (1971). {¶ 26} It is well established that when the police stop a vehicle based on probable cause that a traffic violation has occurred, the stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 2021"This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or - 11 - Warren CA2020-07-038 magistrate, are "per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.'" Id., quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-455 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 (1971). {¶ 26} It is well established that when the police stop a vehicle based on probable cause that a traffic violation has occurred, the stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. | 2 | 5 |
Katz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1992This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.’ Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 454-455 [ 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 576 ]; Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 357 [ 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 585 ].” (Footnote omitted.) In State v. Bowe (1988), 52 Ohio App.3d 112, 113-114 , 557 N.E.2d 139, 140-142 , the court noted the four exceptions 1992This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.’ Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 454-455 [ 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 576 ]; Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 357 [ 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 585 ].” (Footnote omitted.) In State v. Bowe (1988), 52 Ohio App.3d 112, 113-114 , 557 N.E.2d 139, 140-142 , the court noted the four exceptions | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Xenia v. Wallace
green
2 sentences2011Analyzing whether the police had reasonable suspicion in any given situation requires us to review the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ Maumee v. Weisner (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 295 , 1999-Ohio-68 , 720 N.E.2d 507 , citing United States v. Cortez (1981), 449 U.S. 411, 417 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 .” State v. Cisternino, Cuyahoga App. No. 94674, 2010-Ohio-6027 , ¶ 12. {¶ 19} “The burden of initially establishing whether a search or seizure was authorized –7– by a warrant is on the party challenging the legality of the search or seizure. * * * Once a warrantless search is established, the 2010“The burden of initially establishing whether a search or seizure was authorized by a warrant is on the party challenging the legality of the search or seizure. * * * Once a warrantless search is established, the burden of persuasion is on the state to show the validity of the search. * * * This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.’” State v. Gilbert, 184 Ohio App.3d 642 , | 4 | 1991–2011 |
State v. Kessler
green
2 sentences2021"This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or - 11 - Warren CA2020-07-038 magistrate, are "per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.'" Id., quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-455 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 (1971). {¶ 26} It is well established that when the police stop a vehicle based on probable cause that a traffic violation has occurred, the stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 1988State v. Kessler (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 204, 207 , 7 O.O. 3d 375, 377, 373 N.E. 2d 1252, 1255 . 2 This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are “per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 454-455 ; Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 357 . | 2 | 1988–2021 |
Whren v. United States
green
2 sentences2021Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996); Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996), syllabus; Godwin at ¶ 11 . 2021Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996); Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996), syllabus; Godwin at ¶ 11 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
City of Dayton v. Erickson
green
1 sentence2021Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 (1996); Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996), syllabus; Godwin at ¶ 11 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
City of Maumee v. Weisner
green
2 sentences2011Analyzing whether the police had reasonable suspicion in any given situation requires us to review the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ Maumee v. Weisner (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 295 , 1999-Ohio-68 , 720 N.E.2d 507 , citing United States v. Cortez (1981), 449 U.S. 411, 417 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 .” State v. Cisternino, Cuyahoga App. No. 94674, 2010-Ohio-6027 , ¶ 12. {¶ 19} “The burden of initially establishing whether a search or seizure was authorized –7– by a warrant is on the party challenging the legality of the search or seizure. * * * Once a warrantless search is established, the 2011Analyzing whether the police had reasonable suspicion in any given situation requires us to review the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ Maumee v. Weisner (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 295 , 1999-Ohio-68 , 720 N.E.2d 507 , citing United States v. Cortez (1981), 449 U.S. 411, 417 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 .” State v. Cisternino, Cuyahoga App. No. 94674, 2010-Ohio-6027 , ¶ 12. {¶ 19} “The burden of initially establishing whether a search or seizure was authorized –7– by a warrant is on the party challenging the legality of the search or seizure. * * * Once a warrantless search is established, the | 1 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Cortez
green
2 sentences2011Analyzing whether the police had reasonable suspicion in any given situation requires us to review the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ Maumee v. Weisner (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 295 , 1999-Ohio-68 , 720 N.E.2d 507 , citing United States v. Cortez (1981), 449 U.S. 411, 417 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 .” State v. Cisternino, Cuyahoga App. No. 94674, 2010-Ohio-6027 , ¶ 12. {¶ 19} “The burden of initially establishing whether a search or seizure was authorized –7– by a warrant is on the party challenging the legality of the search or seizure. * * * Once a warrantless search is established, the 2011Analyzing whether the police had reasonable suspicion in any given situation requires us to review the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ Maumee v. Weisner (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 295 , 1999-Ohio-68 , 720 N.E.2d 507 , citing United States v. Cortez (1981), 449 U.S. 411, 417 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 .” State v. Cisternino, Cuyahoga App. No. 94674, 2010-Ohio-6027 , ¶ 12. {¶ 19} “The burden of initially establishing whether a search or seizure was authorized –7– by a warrant is on the party challenging the legality of the search or seizure. * * * Once a warrantless search is established, the | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Gilbert
green
2 sentences2010“The burden of initially establishing whether a search or seizure was authorized by a warrant is on the party challenging the legality of the search or seizure. * * * Once a warrantless search is established, the burden of persuasion is on the state to show the validity of the search. * * * This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.’” State v. Gilbert, 184 Ohio App.3d 642 , 2010“The burden of initially establishing whether a search or seizure was authorized by a warrant is on the party challenging the legality of the search or seizure. * * * Once a warrantless search is established, the burden of persuasion is on the state to show the validity of the search. * * * This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.’” State v. Gilbert, 184 Ohio App.3d 642 , | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Retherford
green
2 sentences2009In Xenia v. Wallace (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 216 , 524 N.E.2d 889 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: {¶ 20} “The burden of initially establishing whether a search or seizure was authorized by a warrant is on the party challenging the legality of the search or seizure. * * * Once a warrantless search is established, the burden of persuasion is on the state to show the validity of the search. * * * This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to 2009In Xenia v. Wallace (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 216 , 524 N.E.2d 889 , the Supreme Court of Ohio stated: {¶ 20} “The burden of initially establishing whether a search or seizure was authorized by a warrant is on the party challenging the legality of the search or seizure. * * * Once a warrantless search is established, the burden of persuasion is on the state to show the validity of the search. * * * This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Bowe
green
2 sentences1992This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.’ Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 454-455 [ 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 576 ]; Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 357 [ 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 585 ].” (Footnote omitted.) In State v. Bowe (1988), 52 Ohio App.3d 112, 113-114 , 557 N.E.2d 139, 140-142 , the court noted the four exceptions 1992This flows from the presumption that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are ‘per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment — subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.’ Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 454-455 [ 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 576 ]; Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 357 [ 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 585 ].” (Footnote omitted.) In State v. Bowe (1988), 52 Ohio App.3d 112, 113-114 , 557 N.E.2d 139, 140-142 , the court noted the four exceptions | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.