If the person arrested is unable to offer sufficient bail or, if the offense charged be a felony, he shall, prior to being confined or removed from the county of arrest, as the case may be, be speedily permitted facilities to communicate with an attorney at law of his own choice, or to communicate with at least one relative or other person for the purpose of obtaining counsel (or in cases of misdemeanors or ordinance violation for the purpose of arranging bail). He shall not thereafter be confined or removed from the county or from the situs of initial detention until such attorney has had reasonable opportunity to confer with him privately, or other person to arrange bail, under such security measures as may be necessary under the circumstances.
Whoever, being a police officer in charge of a prisoner, or the custodian of any jail or place of confinement, violates this section shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: State v. Thompson, 514 N.E.2d 407 (Ohio 1987).
State v. Thompson, 514 N.E.2d 407 (Ohio 1987). “Furthermore, it is apparent from the record that appellant knew of his right to counsel, having been advised of his rights at the time of arrest and several times thereafter, but chose not to invoke such right with either an attorney or other person at the time.”
State v. Woodards, 215 N.E.2d 568 (Ohio 1966). · cites it 2דIn Section 2935.14, Eevised Code, it is provided in part: “If the person arrested is unable to offer sufficient bail or, if the offense charged be a felony, he shall, prior to being confined * * * be speedily permitted facilities to communicate with an attorney at law of his own…”
State v. Wells, 464 N.E.2d 596 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2ד3d 41 ], the Supreme Court stated: “We summarily reject appellant’s argument that his confession should be suppressed because he was transported from Darke County to Miami County in contravention of R.C. 2935.14. * * * Assuming, without deciding, that R.”
State v. Coppock, 659 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “2d 1078 , the Ohio Supreme Court held that the defendant’s confession need not be suppressed because he was transported from Darke County to Miami County in contravention of R.C. 2935.14. The court quoted its recent ruling of Kettering v.”
State v. Bristor, 682 P.2d 122 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2דOhio Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2935.14 , 2935.20 (Page 1982); Dayton v.”
Commonwealth v. Proctor, 585 A.2d 454 (Pa. 1991). “Whoever, being a police officer in charge of a prisoner, or the custodian of any jail or place of confinement, violates *255 this section shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.”
State v. Morris, 2023 Ohio 4105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2ד” R.C. 2935.14. That statute specifically prohibits confinement or removal of that person “until such attorney has had reasonable opportunity to confer with him privately, or other person to arrange bail.”
City of Columbus v. Reid, 513 N.E.2d 351 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “Neither R.C. 2935.14 nor 2935.20 excludes evidence by way of statement of the person arrested or otherwise, even if the statutes were violated.”
City of Toledo v. Dietz, 209 N.E.2d 127 (Ohio 1965). · cites it 12דAppellant claims that he was compelled to he a witness against himself; that he was denied “due process” and assistance of counsel, contrary to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; and that he was denied the protection of Section…”
State v. Cron, 236 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2דThat the defendant was deprived of his constitutional rights and his rights under the statutes of Ohio, particularly Revised Code Section 2935.14, prior to trial, by being denied facilities to communicate with an attorney at law of his choice, or a relative for the purpose of .”
Raine v. Curry, 341 N.E.2d 606 (Ohio Ct. App. 1975). “Sections 2935.14 and 2935.20 of The Ohio Revised Code, in *157 that such finding is unsupported by and contrary to, the manifest weight of the evidence.”
Commonwealth v. McGaffigan, 225 N.E.2d 351 (Mass. 1967). “§ 15-47; Ohio Rev. Code § 2935.14 (Baldwin). We have found no statute which, having provisions similar to G.”
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.