OH10: The cargo area of a box truck couldn’t be searched on RS

Reasonable suspicion and officer safety did not support the search of the cargo area of a box truck. There was no probable cause here, either, for the automobile exception to apply. State v. Jackson, 2016-Ohio-7669, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4535 (10th Dist. Nov. 8, 2016); State v. Byrd, 2016-Ohio-7670, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4538 (10th Dist. Nov. 8, 2016); State v. Hayward, 2016-Ohio-7671, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4539 (10th Dist. Nov. 8, 2016).

Despite the issue being pending in Manuel v. City of Joliet argued in SCOTUS Oct. 5, this court holds there is no Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. Goodfellas, Inc. v. Dunkel, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154977 (M.D.Pa. Nov. 8, 2016).* (But then Manuel is such a mundane and potentially boring case that it’s easy to overlook?)

Defendant pled guilty and appealed with defense counsel filing an Anders brief. Defendant filed a pro se brief arguing the search of his computer violated the Fourth Amendment. The guilty plea waived that issue. United States v. Pepke, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20046 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.