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 1 courts 2012–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nealgreen2 sentences2022Franklin No. 15AP-771, 2016-Ohio-1406, ¶ 23 (examining whether “normal procedures were delayed for reasons unrelated to the investigation of the traffic violation * * *”). 2016"In the absence of some evidence that the normal procedures were delayed for reasons unrelated to the investigation of the traffic violation, the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the evidence is that the length of appellant's detention was no longer than necessary to investigate the traffic violation and issue the ticket." Neal, 2016-Ohio-1406 at ¶ 23 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Batchiligreen2 sentences2024See State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 , 2007-Ohio-2204 , 865 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 12 (When one has been detained so that the police may investigate a traffic violation, the police may detain the individual for the length of time necessary to check the driver’s license, vehicle’s registration, and the vehicle’s license plate.). {¶23} Moreover, this argument relies on a portion of the video that the trial court did not view during the motion-to-suppress hearing or consider in making its determination. 2024See State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 , 2007-Ohio-2204 , 865 N.E.2d 1282, ¶ 12 (When one has been detained so that the police may investigate a traffic violation, the police may detain the individual for the length of time necessary to check the driver’s license, vehicle’s registration, and the vehicle’s license plate.). {¶23} Moreover, this argument relies on a portion of the video that the trial court did not view during the motion-to-suppress hearing or consider in making its determination. | 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. Blatchford
green
1 sentence2020Preble No. CA2015-12-023, 2016-Ohio-8456, ¶ 32 , quoting State v. Neal, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Rodriguez v. United States
green
2 sentences2015He argues that the police needed to have other evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing before bringing the drug-sniffing dog to the scene. {¶18} At oral argument, Reece asserted that the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rodriguez v. United States, ___U.S.___, 135 S.Ct. 1609 , 6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015), supported his position. 2015He argues that the police needed to have other evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing before bringing the drug-sniffing dog to the scene. {¶18} At oral argument, Reece asserted that the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rodriguez v. United States, ___U.S.___, 135 S.Ct. 1609 , 6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015), supported his position. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Retherford
green
2 sentences2012He concludes that the officer had no right to ask the driver for consent to search, citing State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586, 595 , 639 N.E.2d 498 (2d Dist.1994) (after motorist was handed ticket, officer asked to search for no articulable reason). {¶ 13} The state responds that the request for consent occurred before the investigation of the traffic violation had ended, thus distinguishing Retherford. 2012He concludes that the officer had no right to ask the driver for consent to search, citing State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586, 595 , 639 N.E.2d 498 (2d Dist.1994) (after motorist was handed ticket, officer asked to search for no articulable reason). {¶ 13} The state responds that the request for consent occurred before the investigation of the traffic violation had ended, thus distinguishing Retherford. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.