52 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Dayton v. Ericksongreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., City of Dayton v. Erickson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , 11-12 (holding "that where an officer has an articulable reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop a motorist for any criminal violation, including a minor traffic violation , the stop is constitutionally valid") (emphasis added); State v. Gross , Mahoning App. No. 01-CA-115, 2002-Ohio-3465 (rejecting the argument that a de minimis violation does not support probable cause); State v. Mehta (Sept. 4, 2001), Butler App. No. CA2000-11-232 (rejecting as "meritless" argument that a de minimis violation does not support probable ca 2007Ornelas v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 . {¶ 66} This Court, relying on Dayton v. Erickson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , and our analysis in State v. McCormick (Feb. 2, 2001), Stark App. No. 2000CA00204, unreported, has held that any traffic violation, even a de minimis violation, would form a sufficient basis upon which to stop a vehicle. {¶ 67} "The severity of the violation is not the determining factor as to whether probable cause existed for the stop." State v. Weimaster (Dec. 21, 1999), Richland App. No. 99CA36, unreported. | 7 | 17 |
State v. Tidwell (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025Law enforcement officers also may stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity “ ‘may be afoot.’ ” ” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002), quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); accord State v. Tidwell, 2021-Ohio-2072, ¶ 19 (officer may “make an investigatory stop, including a traffic stop, of a person if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity”). {¶20} Relevant to the case at bar, a police officer who observes a de mi 2025Law enforcement officers also may stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity “ ‘may be afoot.’ ” ” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002), quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); accord State v. Tidwell, 2021-Ohio-2072, ¶ 19 (officer may “make an investigatory stop, including a traffic stop, of a person if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity”). {¶20} Relevant to the case at bar, a police officer who observes a de mi | 4 | 4 |
United States v. Sokolowgreen2 sentences2025Law enforcement officers also may stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity ‘ “may be afoot.” ’ ” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002), quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). {¶22} A police officer who observes a de minimis violation of traffic laws may stop a driver. 2025Law enforcement officers also may stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity “ ‘may be afoot.’ ” ” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002), quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); accord State v. Tidwell, 2021-Ohio-2072, ¶ 19 (officer may “make an investigatory stop, including a traffic stop, of a person if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity”). {¶20} Relevant to the case at bar, a police officer who observes a de mi | 3 | 5 |
United States v. Arvizugreen2 sentences2025Law enforcement officers also may stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity ‘ “may be afoot.” ’ ” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002), quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). {¶22} A police officer who observes a de minimis violation of traffic laws may stop a driver. 2025Law enforcement officers also may stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity “ ‘may be afoot.’ ” ” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002), quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); accord State v. Tidwell, 2021-Ohio-2072, ¶ 19 (officer may “make an investigatory stop, including a traffic stop, of a person if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity”). {¶20} Relevant to the case at bar, a police officer who observes a de mi | 3 | 5 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2025Law enforcement officers also may stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity ‘ “may be afoot.” ’ ” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002), quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). {¶22} A police officer who observes a de minimis violation of traffic laws may stop a driver. 2025Law enforcement officers also may stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity “ ‘may be afoot.’ ” ” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002), quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968); accord State v. Tidwell, 2021-Ohio-2072, ¶ 19 (officer may “make an investigatory stop, including a traffic stop, of a person if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity”). {¶20} Relevant to the case at bar, a police officer who observes a de mi | 3 | 5 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimmsgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 108- 109, 98 S.Ct. 330 , (1997). {¶14} A police officer may stop the driver of a vehicle after observing a de minimis violation of traffic laws. 2013See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 108- 109, 98 S.Ct. 330 , (1997). {¶14} A police officer may stop the driver of a vehicle after observing a de minimis violation of traffic laws. | 2 | 3 |
Whren v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2006No. 5- 99-41, 2000-Ohio-1663 ("While we recognize the existence of those cases holding essentially that a de minimis violation does not necessarily give a police officer reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle, * * * we disagree with the general reasoning of those cases and note that such cases have effectively been overruled by the United States Supreme Court in Whren v. United States (1996), 517 U.S. 806 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.E.2d 89 , and the Ohio Supreme Court in Dayton v. Erickson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3 ."). {¶ 65} Nevertheless, while we stand behind our decisions which have held that 2006No. 5- 99-41, 2000-Ohio-1663 ("While we recognize the existence of those cases holding essentially that a de minimis violation does not necessarily give a police officer reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle, * * * we disagree with the general reasoning of those cases and note that such cases have effectively been overruled by the United States Supreme Court in Whren v. United States (1996), 517 U.S. 806 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.E.2d 89 , and the Ohio Supreme Court in Dayton v. Erickson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3 ."). {¶ 65} Nevertheless, while we stand behind our decisions which have held that | 1 | 8 |
State v. Koczwaragreen2 sentences2026See State v. Williams, 2014-Ohio-4897 , ¶ 9 (4th Dist.), citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), and Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996), syllabus. “[A] traffic stop with the proper standard of evidence is valid regardless of the officer's underlying ulterior motives as the test is merely whether the officer ‘could’ have performed the act complained of; pretext is irrelevant if the action complained of was permissible.” See State v. Scioto App. No. 25CA4120 14 Koczwara, 2014-Ohio-1946, ¶ 22 (7th Dist.), citing Erickson at 7 and 11, 665 N.E.2d 1091 . 2021Mahoning No. 13MA149, 2014-Ohio-1946 , ¶ 22 * * *. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Maylgreen2 sentences2019It states, “While not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated.” {¶17} In State v. Baker, the Ohio Supreme Court held, Our decisions in Plummer [ 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E. 2d 902 (1986] and Mayl [ 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio-4629 , 833 N.E.2d 1216 ] are instructive on the question of substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701–53–05(F) and establish that the state’s error in failing to refrigerate a specimen for four to five hours before placement of the specimen in transit to a laboratory for analysis is a de minimis error and does not rend 2019It states, “While not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated.” {¶17} In State v. Baker, the Ohio Supreme Court held, Our decisions in Plummer [ 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E. 2d 902 (1986] and Mayl [ 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio-4629 , 833 N.E.2d 1216 ] are instructive on the question of substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701–53–05(F) and establish that the state’s error in failing to refrigerate a specimen for four to five hours before placement of the specimen in transit to a laboratory for analysis is a de minimis error and does not rend | 1 | 2 |
City of Columbus v. Gullick, 07ap-520 (6-26-2008)green1 sentence2026Columbus v. Gullick, 2008-Ohio-3168, ¶ 12 (10th Dist.). {¶25} In accordance with the above, “any traffic violation, even a de minimis violation, may form a sufficient basis upon which to stop a vehicle.” Kay, ¶ 17. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodsgreen1 sentence2025State v. Bangoura, 2009-Ohio- 3339 ¶14 (5th Dist.); State v. Woods, 2013-Ohio-1136, ¶60 (5th Dist.). {¶19} Based upon the totality of the circumstances, we find Deputy Cline had reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop of Appellant’s vehicle. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Alexander-Lindseygreen1 sentence2022See State v. Alexander-Lindsey, 2016-Ohio-3033 , 65 N.E.3d 129 , ¶ 11. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Fairfield County, Case No. 18-CA-35 6 146 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2016-Ohio-451 , 58 N.E.2d 114, ¶26 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andrewsgreen2 sentences2019Compare State v. Andrews, 2017-Ohio-1383 , 89 N.E.3d 157, ¶ 53 (2d Dist.) (holding that even a de minimis violation of the marked- lane statute by driving into an adjacent lane by half a tire width provided reasonable, articulable suspicion for a traffic stop). {¶ 9} In opposition to our conclusion, Starks cites State v. Grenoble, 12th Dist. 2019Compare State v. Andrews, 2017-Ohio-1383 , 89 N.E.3d 157, ¶ 53 (2d Dist.) (holding that even a de minimis violation of the marked- lane statute by driving into an adjacent lane by half a tire width provided reasonable, articulable suspicion for a traffic stop). {¶ 9} In opposition to our conclusion, Starks cites State v. Grenoble, 12th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Middleton, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2005)green1 sentence2011See State v. Middleton, Preble App. No. CA2004-01-003, 2005-Ohio-681, ¶25 . {¶35} Appellant finally requests this Court to order the trial court to correct a de minimis error in the May 25, 2010 sentencing entry. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Alemu, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2005)green1 sentence2011See State v. Alemu, Licking App.No. 2005CA00039, 2005-Ohio-5955 , ¶ 46 - ¶ 47. {¶32} There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress. | 1 | 1 |
| Berry v. Paisleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Environmental Network Corp. v. Goodman Weiss Miller, L.L.P.green | 1 | 1 |
Fitzpatrick v. Zimmerman, 21727 (7-27-2007)green1 sentence2007See State v. Mays , 114 Ohio St.3d 1506 , 2007-Ohio-4285 , 72 N.E.2d 949 (Table) (accepting a certified conflict and stating the question that was certified). {¶ 34} In Mays , the Fifth District followed existing authority, which held that "any traffic violation, even a de minimis violation, would form a sufficient basis upon which to stop a vehicle." 2007-Ohio-3807 , at ¶ 12 . | 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. Baker (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “failing to refrigerate a blood specimen for a period of four hours and ten minutes before placing it in transit for analysis is a de minimis error and does not render the test result inadmissible for failure to substantially comply with Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-0[6(G)].” State v. Baker, 146 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2016-Ohio-451 , 58 N.E.3d 1114, ¶ 21 . 2023The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “failing to refrigerate a blood specimen for a period of four hours and ten minutes before placing it in transit for analysis is a de minimis error and does not render the test result inadmissible for failure to substantially comply with Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-0[6(G)].” State v. Baker, 146 Ohio St.3d 456 , 2016-Ohio-451 , 58 N.E.3d 1114, ¶ 21 . | 3 | 2019–2024 |
State v. Plummer
green
2 sentences2019It states, “While not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated.” {¶17} In State v. Baker, the Ohio Supreme Court held, Our decisions in Plummer [ 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E. 2d 902 (1986] and Mayl [ 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio-4629 , 833 N.E.2d 1216 ] are instructive on the question of substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701–53–05(F) and establish that the state’s error in failing to refrigerate a specimen for four to five hours before placement of the specimen in transit to a laboratory for analysis is a de minimis error and does not rend 2019It states, “While not in transit or under examination, all blood and urine specimens shall be refrigerated.” {¶17} In State v. Baker, the Ohio Supreme Court held, Our decisions in Plummer [ 22 Ohio St.3d 292 , 490 N.E. 2d 902 (1986] and Mayl [ 106 Ohio St.3d 207 , 2005-Ohio-4629 , 833 N.E.2d 1216 ] are instructive on the question of substantial compliance with Ohio Adm.Code 3701–53–05(F) and establish that the state’s error in failing to refrigerate a specimen for four to five hours before placement of the specimen in transit to a laboratory for analysis is a de minimis error and does not rend | 3 | 2016–2019 |
State v. Wilhelm
green
2 sentences2005See Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , 665 N.E.2d 1091 , syllabus; State v. Wilhelm (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 444 , 692 N.E.2d 181 ; State v. McCormick (Feb. 5, 2001), 5th Dist. 2005See Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , 665 N.E.2d 1091 , syllabus; State v. Wilhelm (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 444 , 692 N.E.2d 181 ; State v. McCormick (Feb. 5, 2001), 5th Dist. | 3 | 2001–2005 |
State v. Burnside
green
2 sentences2024(Citations omitted.) Id. {¶ 52} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “failing to refrigerate a blood specimen for a period of four hours and ten minutes before placing it in transit for analysis is a de minimis error and does not render the test result inadmissible for failure to substantially comply” with administrative regulations. 2016“Indeed, the General Assembly instructed the Director of Health — and not the judiciary — to ensure the reliability of alcohol-test results by promulgating regulations precisely because the former possesses the scientific expertise that the latter does not.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. {¶ 35} If the state’s burden to show substantial compliance under the Burnside test is to have any relevance, courts must have the information needed to assess what constitutes a de minimis error. | 2 | 2016–2024 |
Ornelas v. United States
green
2 sentences2007Ornelas v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 . {¶ 66} This Court, relying on Dayton v. Erickson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , and our analysis in State v. McCormick (Feb. 2, 2001), Stark App. No. 2000CA00204, unreported, has held that any traffic violation, even a de minimis violation, would form a sufficient basis upon which to stop a vehicle. {¶ 67} "The severity of the violation is not the determining factor as to whether probable cause existed for the stop." State v. Weimaster (Dec. 21, 1999), Richland App. No. 99CA36, unreported. 2007Ornelas v. U.S. (1996), 517 U.S. 690 , 116 S.Ct. 1657 , 1663 , 134 L.Ed.2d 911 . {¶ 66} This Court, relying on Dayton v. Erickson (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 3 , and our analysis in State v. McCormick (Feb. 2, 2001), Stark App. No. 2000CA00204, unreported, has held that any traffic violation, even a de minimis violation, would form a sufficient basis upon which to stop a vehicle. {¶ 67} "The severity of the violation is not the determining factor as to whether probable cause existed for the stop." State v. Weimaster (Dec. 21, 1999), Richland App. No. 99CA36, unreported. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Netter
green
1 sentence2024Law enforcement officers also may stop a vehicle if they [Cite as State v. Netter, 2024-Ohio-1068 .] have reasonable suspicion “that criminal activity “ ‘may be afoot.’ ” ” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002), quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); accord State v. Tidwell, 165 Ohio St.3d 57 , 2021-Ohio-2072 , 175 N.E.3d 527, ¶ 19 (officer may “make an investigatory stop, including a traffic stop, of a person if the offi | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Davis v. Flickinger
green
2 sentences2021The trier of fact "has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page." Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418 , 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). {¶ 18} This court has consistently held any traffic violation could form a sufficient basis upon which to stop a vehicle, including a de minimis violation. 2021The trier of fact "has the best opportunity to view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness, something that does not translate well on the written page." Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415, 418 , 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997). {¶ 18} This court has consistently held any traffic violation could form a sufficient basis upon which to stop a vehicle, including a de minimis violation. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Alim
green
2 sentences2020Nonetheless, upon stopping the vehicle an odor of marijuana was detected. “‘[U]nder the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the police may search a motor vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.’” Alim, 2017-Ohio-8868 , 100 N.E.3d 1119, at ¶ 27 , quoting State v. Battle, 10th Dist. 2020Nonetheless, upon stopping the vehicle an odor of marijuana was detected. “‘[U]nder the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, the police may search a motor vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.’” Alim, 2017-Ohio-8868 , 100 N.E.3d 1119, at ¶ 27 , quoting State v. Battle, 10th Dist. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Adoption of Zschach
green
1 sentence2020Father chose to take no action to contest the petition, and as a consequence, his consent is not required pursuant to R.C. 3107.07(K). {¶ 15} As the Ohio Supreme Court has acknowledged, "strict adherence to the procedural mandates of [R.C. 3107.07(K)] might appear unfair," but "the state's interest in facilitating the adoption of children and having the adoption proceeding completed expeditiously justifies such a rigid application." In re Zschach, 75 Ohio St. 3d at 653 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (1-3-2006)
neutral
1 sentence2017Stark No. 2005 CA 00106, 2006-Ohio-14, ¶ 11 , citing State v. Lambert, 5th Dist. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Rodriguez v. United States
green
1 sentence2015Id. {¶21} The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether police, absent reasonable suspicion, could extend an otherwise-completed traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Dunfee, Unpublished Decision (11-3-2003)
green
1 sentence2012No. 02CA37, 2003-Ohio-5970 , 2003 WL 2253819 , ¶ 25, citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , (1997). {¶20} A police officer may stop the driver of a vehicle after observing a de minimis violation of traffic laws. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Stutzman v. Madison County Board of Elections
green
2 sentences2009Bd. of Elections (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 511, 515 , 757 N.E.2d 297 , holding that a de minimis error in the acreage listed in the title of referendum petition relating to a village ordinance rezoning property did not *266 violate the R.C. 731.31 requirement that referendum petitions contain a “full and correct copy of the title of the ordinance” because there was no evidence or any reasonable argument that the error could have misled electors to sign a petition that they would not have signed had the correct acreage been listed. {¶ 31} For the Wolf parcel, Miller and McCarthy claim — as they did 2009Bd. of Elections (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 511, 515 , 757 N.E.2d 297 , holding that a de minimis error in the acreage listed in the title of referendum petition relating to a village ordinance rezoning property did not *266 violate the R.C. 731.31 requirement that referendum petitions contain a “full and correct copy of the title of the ordinance” because there was no evidence or any reasonable argument that the error could have misled electors to sign a petition that they would not have signed had the correct acreage been listed. {¶ 31} For the Wolf parcel, Miller and McCarthy claim — as they did | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Ohio v. Freeman green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Bobo green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| United States v. Leroy Roberson, Jr., Lonnie Keeper, and Lawanda Whitlock green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Edward Dane Jeffus green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Gregory B. Bloomfield, Also Known as Earl Marcum Johnson green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Paul N. Johnson Darryl Jonns Lamont Bell and Craig Richardson, Paul N. Johnson green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.