After the arrest, detention, or any other taking into custody of a person, with or without a warrant, such person shall be permitted forthwith facilities to communicate with an attorney at law of his choice who is entitled to practice in the courts of this state, or to communicate with any other person of his choice for the purpose of obtaining counsel. Such communication may be made by a reasonable number of telephone calls or in any other reasonable manner. Such person shall have a right to be visited immediately by any attorney at law so obtained who is entitled to practice in the courts of this state, and to consult with him privately. No officer or any other agent of this state shall prevent, attempt to prevent, or advise such person against the communication, visit, or consultation provided for by this section.
Whoever violates this section shall be fined not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: State v. Stover, 2017 Ohio 9097 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Stover, 2017 Ohio 9097 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 15דAccording to Stover, Officer Lennons' actions violated R.C. 2935.20, a statute that provides, in pertinent part: After the arrest, detention, or any other taking into custody of a person, with or without a warrant, such person shall be permitted forthwith facilities to…”
Dobbins v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehs., 664 N.E.2d 908 (Ohio 1996). · cites it 11דThe issues presented by this case are (1) whether police violate an arrestee’s statutory right to effective communication with legal counsel contained in R.C. 2935.20 when they audiotape the telephone conversation between the arrestee and her attorney; and (2) if the police…”
State v. Lloyd, 709 N.E.2d 913 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3דPRESS BREATHALYZER TEST Although we have already concluded that appellant did not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel prior to taking the breath-alcohol test, and even though appellant did not raise the argument that he was denied his statutory right to counsel, we feel that…”
City of Fairborn v. Mattachione, 650 N.E.2d 426 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 6ד2d 351 , upon the following question: *346 “[Wjhether or not the exclusionary rule is applicable as a sanction for violation of R.C. 2935.20.” This court answers the certified question in the negative.”
State v. Layton, 675 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 15דA hearing was held on appellant’s motion to suppress, which alleged that the BAC test results pertaining to her were obtained in violation of her rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, United States Constitution; Sections 10 and 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution; and…”
City of Columbus v. Reid, 513 N.E.2d 351 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 7ד” The thrust of the motion was that Reid had been denied her right to counsel under R.C. 2935.20 and under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Simin, 2012 Ohio 4389 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3ד{¶43} In his eighth assignment of error, Simin argues that the trial court erred when it refused his requests to make the jury aware of his statutory right to counsel pursuant to R.C. 2935.20. He argues that the trial court’s ruling prevented him from setting forth a defense…”
State v. Griffith, 74 Ohio St. 3d 554 (Ohio 1996). · cites it 4ד2d 767 , upon the following question: “Does imposition of the exclusionary rule lie as a remedy for police violation of the accused’s statutory right to counsel under Section 2935.20 of the Revised Code in a prosecution arising under Section 4511.”
State v. Morris, 2023 Ohio 4105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 7דUnder R.C. 2935.20, after an arrest, an individual must be provided opportunities to communicate and consult with an attorney.”
State v. Ruediger, 2024 Ohio 1975 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5ד” Ruediger argues that his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and right against self-incrimination were violated; his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated; and his right to communicate with an attorney under R.C. 2935.20 was violated. Ruediger further…”
State v. Weideman, 764 N.E.2d 997 (Ohio 2002). “2d 710 (police violation of defendant’s right to counsel under R.C. 2935.20 does not require suppression of evidence of breath-alcohol content); State v.”
Prideaux v. State Dept. of Pub. Saf., 247 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 1976). “20 [1971]) providing in part: “After the arrest, detention, or any other taking into custody of a person, with or without a warrant, such person shall be permitted forthwith facilities to communicate with an attorney at law of his choice who is entitled to practice in the courts…”
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.