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 1962–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ker v. Californiagreen2 sentences1965We understand and appreciate the necessity for the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U. S. 643 , that evidence obtained by a search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible, and that it is applicable in criminal prosecutions in state courts, and with the rule announced by that court in Ker v. California (1962), 374 U. S. 23, 33, that federal standards of “reasonableness” are *289 to be applied in determining the legality of state searches and seizures. 1963See also, State v. Young, 91 Ohio Law Abs., 21 , 185 N. E. (2d), 33 (1962); Ker v. California, supra. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Younggreen1 sentence1963See also, State v. Young, 91 Ohio Law Abs., 21 , 185 N. E. (2d), 33 (1962); Ker v. California, supra. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1965We understand and appreciate the necessity for the rule announced by the Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U. S. 643 , that evidence obtained by a search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible, and that it is applicable in criminal prosecutions in state courts, and with the rule announced by that court in Ker v. California (1962), 374 U. S. 23, 33, that federal standards of “reasonableness” are *289 to be applied in determining the legality of state searches and seizures. 1963Ed. (2d), 1081, 81 S. Ct., 1684 (1961) ( 86 Abs., 513 ), established that, as a matter of due process, evidence obtained by a search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is inadmissible in a state court. | 4 | 1962–1965 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1963Ed. (2d), 1081, 81 S. Ct., 1684 (1961) ( 86 Abs., 513 ), established that, as a matter of due process, evidence obtained by a search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is inadmissible in a state court. 1962Ed. (2d), 1081, 81 S. Ct., 1684 , USSC 86 Abs., 513 , which case established that, as a matter of due process, evidence obtained by a search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution is inadmissible in a state court. | 2 | 1962–1963 |
State v. Burnside
green
1 sentence2022Accordingly, she maintains that the methamphetamine confiscated inside the home should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. {¶10} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 , 2003-Ohio-5372 , ¶ 8. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1995The reverse, however, is not always true.” Anchorage v. Ray (Alaska App. 1993), 854 P.2d 740, 748 . *343 The two constitutional provisions join to require that in any search and seizure the “means and procedures employed [must respect] relevant Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness.” Schmerber v. California, supra, 384 U.S. at 768 , 86 S.Ct. at 1834 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 918 . 1995The reverse, however, is not always true.” Anchorage v. Ray (Alaska App. 1993), 854 P.2d 740, 748 . *343 The two constitutional provisions join to require that in any search and seizure the “means and procedures employed [must respect] relevant Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness.” Schmerber v. California, supra, 384 U.S. at 768 , 86 S.Ct. at 1834 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 918 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Municipality of Anchorage v. Ray
green
1 sentence1995The reverse, however, is not always true.” Anchorage v. Ray (Alaska App. 1993), 854 P.2d 740, 748 . *343 The two constitutional provisions join to require that in any search and seizure the “means and procedures employed [must respect] relevant Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness.” Schmerber v. California, supra, 384 U.S. at 768 , 86 S.Ct. at 1834 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 918 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Lindway
green
1 sentence1962That case overruled the procedure approved in the case of State v. Lindway, 131 Ohio St., 166 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.