OH3: A court order issued with PC and otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment doesn’t have to be called a “search warrant” to be effective

A court ordered GPS device was placed on defendant’s vehicle. His movements watched online and facts the police had learned added up to reasonable suspicion for a stop. [If they had PC for a tracking warrant, why not for the car itself later?] State v. Urdiales, 2015-Ohio-3632, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 3549 (3d Dist. September 8, 2015).

The officer who shot plaintiff’s pit bull was justified. The dog had been removed to a pen during the search and seemingly neutralized. The dog somehow escaped, appeared behind an officer, and was snarling and then barked and attacked the officer who shot at the dog once, knocking him down, and the dog got up and came at him again and this time the officer shot and justifiably killed the dog. This case is completely different from San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose, 402 F.3d 962, 975 (9th Cir. 2005), that plaintiff relies on where officers wantonly shot and killed dogs rather than deal with them. “Finally, while Buster’s killing doubtlessly presents a grave intrusion on Grant’s property rights, in this case, unlike in Hells Angels, the governmental interest of safety provides a sound justification.” Grant v. City of Houston, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16240 (5th Cir. September 10, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Probable cause, Warrant requirement. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.