When a person named in section 2935.03 of the Revised Code has arrested a person without a warrant, he shall, without unnecessary delay, take the person arrested before a court or magistrate having jurisdiction of the offense, and shall file or cause to be filed an affidavit describing the offense for which the person was arrested. Such affidavit shall be filed either with the court or magistrate, or with the prosecuting attorney or other attorney charged by law with prosecution of crimes before such court or magistrate and if filed with such attorney he shall forthwith file with such court or magistrate a complaint, based on such affidavit.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1963–2022 · leading case: State v. Thompson, 514 N.E.2d 407 (Ohio 1987).
State v. Thompson, 514 N.E.2d 407 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 4דAppellant, in his final challenge to the legality of his arrest, claims that pursuant to R.C. 2935.05, an affidavit describing the offense should have been issued immediately after his arrest, not five days later as was done herein.”
State v. Jordan (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 3922 (Ohio 2021). · cites it 2דCompare R.C. 2935.05 (“When a person named in section 2935.”
State v. Hill, 595 N.E.2d 884 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 2ד*321 In his sixth proposition of law, defendant alleges that the police failed to comply with R.C. 2935.05, 2 and that his arrest was therefore illegal, and any statements derived therefrom must be suppressed.”
State v. Taylor, 2022 Ohio 2877 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2ד" Although the record does not affirmatively indicate, apparently the arrest was without a warrant, since there is no record of an order of the court that defendant be taken into custody, which necessarily would have been preceded by the filing of a complaint, and, accordingly,…”
State v. Davie, 686 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio 1997). “05 was not violated, as there was no *321 “unnecessary delay,” since the affidavit describing the offense for which Davie was charged was taken before the trial court the morning after his arrest. For these reasons, we reject proposition VI.”
State v. Hobbs, 2012 Ohio 3886 (Ohio 2012). “R.C. 2935.05. This is also the warrantlessarrest procedure set forth in Crim.”
State v. Hill, 1992 Ohio 43 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 2דIn his sixth proposition of law, defendant alleges that the police failed to comply with R.C. 2935.05,2 and that his arrest was therefore illegal, and any statements derived therefrom must be suppressed.”
Stone v. Holzberger, 807 F. Supp. 1325 (S.D. Ohio 1992). · cites it 2דSee Ohio Rev.Code § 2935.05 (Page’s 1987). Accordingly, the remaining Sheriff’s defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim.”
State v. Davie, 1997 Ohio 341 (Ohio 1997). “For these reasons, we reject proposition VI. {¶ 58} In proposition VII, Davie asserts that suggestive, unreliable police identification procedures presented a substantial likelihood of misidentification and thereby violated his right to due process.”
State v. Gedeon, 2019 Ohio 3348 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). ““All further detention and further proceedings shall be pursuant to such affidavit * * * and warrant.”
United States v. Alexander, 740 F. Supp. 437 (N.D. Ohio 1990). · cites it 2דIn relevant part, Section 2935.05, "Affidavit filed in case of arrest without warrant,” provides: When a person named in section 2935.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.