OH11: Conflict of laws: Recording of def in CA which violated CA law but not Fourth Amendment nor OH law was admissible in OH prosecution

Where a recording of defendant was made in California in violation of California law but being used in a prosecution in Ohio, the exclusionary rule would not be applied. The recording violated neither the Fourth Amendment nor Ohio law, and it was otherwise admissible. State v. Knoefel, 2015-Ohio-5207, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 5043 (11th Dist. Dec. 14, 2015).

Where decedent fired at police first, shooting back was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Howard v. City of Pine Bluff, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166903 (E.D.Ark. Dec. 14, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Conflict of laws, Excessive force, Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.