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 2000–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen2 sentences2023“In order to waive his Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures, the accused must give a consent which is voluntary under the totality of all the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Childress, 4 Ohio St.3d 217 , 448 N.E.2d 155 (1983), paragraph one of the syllabus. “[W]hen the subject of a search is not in custody,” the State must “demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.” State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 242-243 , 685 N.E.2d 762 (1997), quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. 2023“In order to waive his Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures, the accused must give a consent which is voluntary under the totality of all the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Childress, 4 Ohio St.3d 217 , 448 N.E.2d 155 (1983), paragraph one of the syllabus. “[W]hen the subject of a search is not in custody,” the State must “demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.” State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 242-243 , 685 N.E.2d 762 (1997), quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Ferrellgreen2 sentences2025“A search based on consent is one exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement.” State v. Ferrell, 2017-Ohio-9341, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.); see State v. Penn, 61 Ohio St.3d 720, 723 (1991). 2023“Consequently, evidence obtained in a warrantless search is generally inadmissible, and under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, such evidence cannot serve as probable cause to support a subsequent warrant.” State v. Posey, 40 Ohio St.3d 420, 427 , 534 N.E.2d 61 (1988). {¶12} “A search based on consent is one exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement.” State v. Ferrell, 2017-Ohio-9341 , 91 N.E.3d 766, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.); State v. Penn, 61 Ohio St.3d 720, 723-724 , 576 N.E.2d 790 (1991). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Penngreen2 sentences2025“A search based on consent is one exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement.” State v. Ferrell, 2017-Ohio-9341, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.); see State v. Penn, 61 Ohio St.3d 720, 723 (1991). 2023“Consequently, evidence obtained in a warrantless search is generally inadmissible, and under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, such evidence cannot serve as probable cause to support a subsequent warrant.” State v. Posey, 40 Ohio St.3d 420, 427 , 534 N.E.2d 61 (1988). {¶12} “A search based on consent is one exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement.” State v. Ferrell, 2017-Ohio-9341 , 91 N.E.3d 766, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.); State v. Penn, 61 Ohio St.3d 720, 723-724 , 576 N.E.2d 790 (1991). | 1 | 2 |
Township of Bainbridge v. Kaseda, 2007-G-2797 (5-2-2008)green1 sentence2025“Appellate review of the voluntariness of consent to search is ‘limited to a determination of whether the trial court’s decision was “clearly erroneous,”’ and an appellate court must ‘accept the trial court’s findings of facts and determinations regarding credibility if they are supported by competent, credible evidence.’” Bainbridge v. Kaseda, 2008-Ohio-2136, ¶ 27 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Samples, 1994 WL 315710 , *2 (11th Dist. June 24, 1994). {¶44} “In order to waive his Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures, the accused must give a consent which is vol | 1 | 1 |
Florida v. Royergreen2 sentences2023“In order to waive his Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures, the accused must give a consent which is voluntary under the totality of all the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Childress, 4 Ohio St.3d 217 , 448 N.E.2d 155 (1983), paragraph one of the syllabus. “[W]hen the subject of a search is not in custody,” the State must “demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.” State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 242-243 , 685 N.E.2d 762 (1997), quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. 2023“In order to waive his Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures, the accused must give a consent which is voluntary under the totality of all the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Childress, 4 Ohio St.3d 217 , 448 N.E.2d 155 (1983), paragraph one of the syllabus. “[W]hen the subject of a search is not in custody,” the State must “demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.” State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 242-243 , 685 N.E.2d 762 (1997), quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. | 1 | 1 |
Florida v. Jimenogreen2 sentences2000See id., 412 U.S. at 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 . "`[W]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given.' Bumper v. North Carolina [1968], 391 U.S. 543 , 548 [, 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 ]. * * *." Id., 412 U.S. at 222 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (citations omitted); see, also, Florida v. Jimeno (1991), 500 U.S. 248 , 250- 51, 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 . 2000See id., 412 U.S. at 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 . "`[W]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given.' Bumper v. North Carolina [1968], 391 U.S. 543 , 548 [, 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 ]. * * *." Id., 412 U.S. at 222 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (citations omitted); see, also, Florida v. Jimeno (1991), 500 U.S. 248 , 250- 51, 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 . | 1 | 1 |
Bumper v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences2000See id., 412 U.S. at 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 . "`[W]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given.' Bumper v. North Carolina [1968], 391 U.S. 543 , 548 [, 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 ]. * * *." Id., 412 U.S. at 222 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (citations omitted); see, also, Florida v. Jimeno (1991), 500 U.S. 248 , 250- 51, 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 . 2000See id., 412 U.S. at 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 . "`[W]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given.' Bumper v. North Carolina [1968], 391 U.S. 543 , 548 [, 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 ]. * * *." Id., 412 U.S. at 222 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (citations omitted); see, also, Florida v. Jimeno (1991), 500 U.S. 248 , 250- 51, 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 . | 1 | 1 |
Katz v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2000See id., 412 U.S. at 219 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 . "`[W]hen a prosecutor seeks to rely upon consent to justify the lawfulness of a search, he has the burden of proving that the consent was, in fact, freely and voluntarily given.' Bumper v. North Carolina [1968], 391 U.S. 543 , 548 [, 88 S.Ct. 1788 , 20 L.Ed.2d 797 ]. * * *." Id., 412 U.S. at 222 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (citations omitted); see, also, Florida v. Jimeno (1991), 500 U.S. 248 , 250- 51, 111 S.Ct. 1801 , 114 L.Ed.2d 297 . | 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. Robinette
green
2 sentences2023“In order to waive his Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures, the accused must give a consent which is voluntary under the totality of all the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Childress, 4 Ohio St.3d 217 , 448 N.E.2d 155 (1983), paragraph one of the syllabus. “[W]hen the subject of a search is not in custody,” the State must “demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.” State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 242-243 , 685 N.E.2d 762 (1997), quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. 2023“In order to waive his Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures, the accused must give a consent which is voluntary under the totality of all the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Childress, 4 Ohio St.3d 217 , 448 N.E.2d 155 (1983), paragraph one of the syllabus. “[W]hen the subject of a search is not in custody,” the State must “demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.” State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 242-243 , 685 N.E.2d 762 (1997), quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. | 3 | 2017–2023 |
State v. Childress
green
2 sentences2025“Appellate review of the voluntariness of consent to search is ‘limited to a determination of whether the trial court’s decision was “clearly erroneous,”’ and an appellate court must ‘accept the trial court’s findings of facts and determinations regarding credibility if they are supported by competent, credible evidence.’” Bainbridge v. Kaseda, 2008-Ohio-2136, ¶ 27 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Samples, 1994 WL 315710 , *2 (11th Dist. June 24, 1994). {¶44} “In order to waive his Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures, the accused must give a consent which is vol 2023“In order to waive his Fourth Amendment privilege against unreasonable searches and seizures, the accused must give a consent which is voluntary under the totality of all the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Childress, 4 Ohio St.3d 217 , 448 N.E.2d 155 (1983), paragraph one of the syllabus. “[W]hen the subject of a search is not in custody,” the State must “demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied.” State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 242-243 , 685 N.E.2d 762 (1997), quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. | 2 | 2023–2025 |
State v. Posey
green
2 sentences2023“Consequently, evidence obtained in a warrantless search is generally inadmissible, and under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, such evidence cannot serve as probable cause to support a subsequent warrant.” State v. Posey, 40 Ohio St.3d 420, 427 , 534 N.E.2d 61 (1988). {¶12} “A search based on consent is one exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement.” State v. Ferrell, 2017-Ohio-9341 , 91 N.E.3d 766, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.); State v. Penn, 61 Ohio St.3d 720, 723-724 , 576 N.E.2d 790 (1991). 2023“Consequently, evidence obtained in a warrantless search is generally inadmissible, and under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, such evidence cannot serve as probable cause to support a subsequent warrant.” State v. Posey, 40 Ohio St.3d 420, 427 , 534 N.E.2d 61 (1988). {¶12} “A search based on consent is one exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement.” State v. Ferrell, 2017-Ohio-9341 , 91 N.E.3d 766, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.); State v. Penn, 61 Ohio St.3d 720, 723-724 , 576 N.E.2d 790 (1991). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
City of Athens v. Wolf
green
2 sentences2020Athens v. Wolf, 38 Ohio St.2d 237, 241 , 313 N.E.2d 405 (1974).” State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 , 2018-Ohio-201 , 96 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 17-18 . {¶11} “A search based on consent is one exception to the Fourth Amendment's general warrant requirement. 2020Athens v. Wolf, 38 Ohio St.2d 237, 241 , 313 N.E.2d 405 (1974).” State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 , 2018-Ohio-201 , 96 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 17-18 . {¶11} “A search based on consent is one exception to the Fourth Amendment's general warrant requirement. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Banks-Harvey
green
2 sentences2020Athens v. Wolf, 38 Ohio St.2d 237, 241 , 313 N.E.2d 405 (1974).” State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 , 2018-Ohio-201 , 96 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 17-18 . {¶11} “A search based on consent is one exception to the Fourth Amendment's general warrant requirement. 2020Athens v. Wolf, 38 Ohio St.2d 237, 241 , 313 N.E.2d 405 (1974).” State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 , 2018-Ohio-201 , 96 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 17-18 . {¶11} “A search based on consent is one exception to the Fourth Amendment's general warrant requirement. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2010Thus, under the rule of Gant, 556 U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 , we cannot find that the search was lawful pursuant to the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the general-warrant requirement. {¶ 27} As the search-incident-to-arrest exception is inapplicable here, we must move on to determine whether another exception to the warrant requirement was present and justified the search of Grubb’s purse and the passenger compartment. 2010Thus, under the rule of Gant, 556 U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 173 L.Ed.2d 485 , we cannot find that the search was lawful pursuant to the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the general-warrant requirement. {¶ 27} As the search-incident-to-arrest exception is inapplicable here, we must move on to determine whether another exception to the warrant requirement was present and justified the search of Grubb’s purse and the passenger compartment. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.