OH: Vehicle frisks under Long; possibility of a carry permit did not nullify patdown with RS

Defendant’s probation search was not shown to be a pretext for a police search. State v. Loper, 2009 Ohio 5920, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4976 (5th Dist. November 5, 2009).*

911 calls with three hangups, no response to calls back, and shouting in background about son shooting up heroin in the bathroom justified entry on exigent circumstances. State v. Davis, 2009 Ohio 5888, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4953 (5th Dist. November 3, 2009).*

Defendant’s furtive movement when he was under surveillance for drug dealing justified a vehicle “frisk” under Long, and Gant was inapplicable. State v. Moore, 2009 Ohio 5927, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4956 (12th Dist. November 9, 2009).*

Similarly, defendant’s having left an open air drug market with his evasiveness when spoken to justified a vehicle “frisk.” “Considering the aforementioned facts, viewed in conjunction with Officer Jordan’s testimony that weapons often accompany drugs, it was reasonable for Officer Jordan to be concerned for his safety. Such concerns substantiated the search of appellant’s vehicle under Michigan v. Long.” State v. Kelley, 2009 Ohio 5924, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4992 (12th Dist. November 9, 2009).*

The trial court erred in making an inference on an inference to conclude that the officer had reasonable suspicion for defendants stop. State v. Fields, 2009 Ohio 5909, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4973 (3d Dist. November 9, 2009).*

Defendant’s stop was with reasonable suspicion, and the officer smelled marijuana. State v. Wingfield, 2009 Ohio 5833, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4906 (8th Dist. November 5, 2009).*

The possibility defendant might have a carry permit did not nullify the reasonable suspicion for a patdown. State v. Taylor, 2009 Ohio 5822, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 4907 (8th Dist. November 5, 2009).*