OH11: DAs get no immunity for forfeiture of a firearm others had an interest in

Prosecutors had no absolute immunity for disposing of a firearm after defendant’s conviction when others had a legal interest in the firearm because it was an administrative function. Ownership and possession are different concepts, and forfeiture of others’ interests were at issue. Kennedy v. Specht, 2018-Ohio-3629, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 3934 (11th Dist. Sep. 10, 2018).*

There is probable cause on the totality: “Under that deferential standard, the state judge’s decision in this case survives review. Roberts’ detailed account of the events gained immediate credibility because certain portions of it fit together with information already developed by the police. True, Roberts could have been lucky or clever enough to have concocted a story that just happened to match up with facts independently known to the police. But the police are not required to rule out every possibility that an informant is lying before crediting his information, particularly where, as here, certain important details of his story have been verified by independent police work. Again, common-sense judgements are what are called for.” United States v. Kimble, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152245 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 16, 2018),* adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151768 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 4, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Forfeiture, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.