OH2: Def’s position in a forfeiture on a piece of property was estoppel on standing in a criminal case

Judicial estoppel: Defendant had no standing in a video camera seized during a drug raid that had a video of him having sex with an impaired victim where he denied in a separate forfeiture proceeding that the camera was his. State v. Robinson, 2014-Ohio-4709, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4614 (2d Dist. October 24, 2014).

The trial court’s findings that defendant consented to his blood draw is supported by the evidence. State v. Mayberry, 2014-Ohio-4706, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4613 (2d Dist. October 24, 2014).*

The record showed that standard inventory policy was followed, and this inventory was not a pretext for a criminal search. State v. Greeno, 2014-Ohio-4718, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 4574 (5th Dist. October 22, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Forfeiture, Inventory, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.