OH8: Touching defendant during stop made non consensual

Officer’s touching the defendant to attempt to restrain him amounts to a seizure. State v. Gross, 2009 Ohio 611, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 533 (8th Dist. February 12, 2009)*:

{¶ 30} The testimony presented in this case demonstrated that, in fact, although Gross attempted to leave, Ramsey prevented him from doing so by “laying hands on him.” Franklin, supra. Subsequently, when Gross informed the officers that his identification was inside his bag, this did not amount to a “consent” to search. Locklear, ¶36, cf., State v. Hull, Ashtabula App. No. 2003-A-0068, 2005-Ohio-2526, ¶13.

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that would have been denied because defendant committed a traffic violation by backing into traffic, and the stop was clearly justified. State v. Alexander, 2009 Ohio 597, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 505 (8th Dist. February 12, 2009).*

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and she had a BOLO out because of suspected drug activities. A drug dog was validly run around the car by another officer while the first officer was checking the license. State v. Dixon, 2009 Ohio 559, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 474 (12th Dist. February 9, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.