OH2: Defendant consented to a show up

A window tint stop led to reasonable suspicion of crime. State v. Jolly, 2008 Ohio 6547, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 5463 (2d Dist. December 12, 2008)*:

[*P18] Here, having approached Jolly’s vehicle, Abney and Coleman, experienced officers, observed conduct that they were able to articulate that raised concerns for their safety. Jolly refused to look at Abney, Jolly was in obvious distress, Abney could not understand Jolly’s responses to his routine questions, and most importantly, Jolly ignored Abney’s order to stop reaching for the bag. For their safety, the officers were entitled to remove Jolly from the car and pat him down. Placing Jolly in the cruiser did not render his detention custody nor exceed the scope of Abney’s legitimate investigation of the window tint violation.

A radio call about a theft and ID’ing the suspect justified defendant’s stop when he was the only person in the vicinity at the time. He was cooperative and consented to the show up. He was not handcuffed or directed to go anywhere. State v. Walker, 2008 Ohio 6551, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 5450 (2d Dist. December 12, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.