There is no federal or constitutional right to be presented with a search warrant at the time the search begins. Here, the officers who obtained the warrant called ahead to the searching officers to say they had it. There was also probable cause and nexus to the premises. State v. Quinones, 2009 Ohio 2718, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2264 (8th Dist. June 11, 2009).
Handcuffing with reasonable suspicion here did not amount to an arrest [after finding that there was probable cause and stating afterward there was probable cause]. The smell of marijuana coming from the car during a valid stop was probable cause for a search [citing Gant, which is wrong because this is not a search incident; the PC is in the car. New cases often excite appellate judges]. State v. Hopper, 2009 Ohio 2711, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2263 (8th Dist. June 11, 2009).*
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging a search of a house that defendant had no connection to other than mere presence at the time of the raid because he was not an overnight guest. “His mere presence is not sufficient to give him the capacity to challenge the constitutionality of the search of the Bye Street house. Thus, Mr. Oliver has failed to carry his burden to show that a valid basis existed to suppress evidence of the crack cocaine and the ‘ripped-off baggies’ police found in the vanity beside him” WHERE HE WAS SLEEPING. State v. Oliver, 2009 Ohio 2680, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2254 (9th Dist. June 10, 2009).*
The officer here responded to a call about a fight and argument in a car, and he came upon the car and saw a sheet covering something in the backseat. He could pull up the sheet, which was a search, but it was reasonable, and it revealed defendant with a gun in plain view. State v. Wilson, 2009 Ohio 2744, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2318 (2d Dist. June 5, 2009):
[*P16] When Officer Allen opened the rear passenger door of the vehicle and pulled the sheet back to see who was underneath it, he engaged in a search of that vehicle. At that time the following facts and circumstances were known. Officer Allen was performing his duty to investigate the police dispatch that involved a man and a woman inside a vehicle in front of that apartment complex who were arguing or fighting. The female passenger in the vehicle stated that her boyfriend was in the back of the vehicle. Officer Allen observed something that resembled a human body on the rear floor of the vehicle underneath a sheet or blanket.
[*P17] The totality of these facts and circumstances, and the inferences reasonably drawn from them, are sufficient in our opinion to give rise to a reasonable suspicion or belief that criminal activity was afoot, or that the person under the blanket might be in distress and in need of immediate assistance or aid. That is sufficient to permit a prudent officer in those circumstances to investigate those matters without a warrant pursuant to Terry or the exigent/emergency circumstances exception. State v. Taylor (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 255, 759 N.E.2d 1281; State v. Sharpe, 174 Ohio App.3d 498, 2008 Ohio 267, 882 N.E.2d 960.
Defendant lawfully stopped for a traffic offense could be ordered from the car. Here, the defendant consented to a patdown. [Like he really knew that he could not consent?] State v. Lett, 2009 Ohio 2796, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2377 (11th Dist. June 12, 2009).*
Officer could follow defendant in hot pursuit into house to arrest him for menacing. State / City of Toledo v. Colbert, 2009 Ohio 2766, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2343 (6th Dist. June 12, 2009).*
Officer approached a house during a warrant sweep and saw defendant leaning against a car, and he frisked him. The frisk was without legal justification as was the alleged plain feel, as was the search of the car. Even if the search of the person was valid, the car search was not. It was lawfully parked in his driveway, so an inventory was not reasonable. There was also no showing he was a recent occupant of the car. State v. Clay, 2009 Ohio 2725, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2225 (8th Dist. June 11, 2009).
