Shining light into defendant’s house window because of exigent circumstances was valid

Officer was justified by exigent circumstances in shining a flashlight into defendant’s window looking for him after finding his car with blood in it after an accident and nobody was with the car. The officer went to the house of the registered owner looking for the driver. State v. Simpson, 2008 Ohio 632, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 563 (5th Dist. February 13, 2008).*

“Defendant attempts to refute the facts found by the trial court that tend to support a finding of reasonable suspicion, to wit: (1) proximity to the alleged burglary; (2) time of day; and (3) the absence of any other persons in the area.” Facts are not taken in isolation. Proximity is relative: here, there was nobody else within half a mile of the scene of an immediate burglary call at night, and that supported reasonable suspicion. State v. Campbell, 2008 N.C. App. LEXIS 280 (February 19, 2008).*

Weaving is indicative of either being fatigued or intoxicated, and either justifies a stop. State v. Andrews, 2008 Ohio 625, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 556 (3d Dist. February 19, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.