OH2: Using a car protective spray on interior expecting a search to occur is tampering with evidence

Spraying a car interior protective spray on the inside of a car involved in a crime when expecting that a search would occur for fingerprints and DNA supported defendant’s conviction for tampering with evidence. State v. Scott, 2017-Ohio-9316, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5788 (2d Dist. Dec. 29, 2017).

After a patdown producing nothing, the officer noticed defendant’s shoes weren’t tied. He asked defendant if he could look at his shoes, and defendant kicked them off. This was consent. State v. Murray, 2017-Ohio-9332, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 5803 (11th Dist. Dec. 29, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.