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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2018 0 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 sentences2018See Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). 2018See Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). | 2 | 2 |
Horton v. Californiagreen2 sentences2018"If the scope of the search exceeds that permitted by the terms of a validly issued warrant or the character of the relevant exception from the warrant requirement, the subsequent seizure is unconstitutional without more." Horton v. California , 496 U.S. 128 , 140, 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990). {¶ 22} The Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement assures that the police cannot indiscriminately rummage through citizens' personal effects. 2018"If the scope of the search exceeds that permitted by the terms of a validly issued warrant or the character of the relevant exception from the warrant requirement, the subsequent seizure is unconstitutional without more." Horton v. California , 496 U.S. 128 , 140, 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990). {¶ 22} The Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement assures that the police cannot indiscriminately rummage through citizens' personal effects. | 1 | 6 |
United States v. Voustianioukgreen1 sentence2016U.S. v. Voustianiouk, 685 F.3d 206, 212 (2d Cir.2012), citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 140 , 110 S.Ct. 2301 , 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990) (“If the scope of a search exceeds that permitted by the terms of a validly issued warrant or the character of the relevant exception from the warrant requirement, the subsequent seizure is unconstitutional without more.”) {¶43} Based on the foregoing, I would find that the search was invalid and the good faith exception would not apply to validate the search. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Layne
green
2 sentences2012“While this does not mean that every police action while inside a home must be explicitly authorized by the text of the warrant, the Fourth Amendment does require that police actions in execution of a warrant be related to the objectives of the authorized intrusion.” (Citation omitted.) Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 611 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 (1999). {¶34} Since the permissible scope of a search is governed by the terms set forth in the search warrant, we begin with the terms of the April search warrant. 2012“While this does not mean that every police action while inside a home must be explicitly authorized by the text of the warrant, the Fourth Amendment does require that police actions in execution of a warrant be related to the objectives of the authorized intrusion.” (Citation omitted.) Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 611 , 119 S.Ct. 1692 (1999). {¶34} Since the permissible scope of a search is governed by the terms set forth in the search warrant, we begin with the terms of the April search warrant. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.