OH5: Shots fired call and witnesses directing officers to house of shooter justified entry under exigency

A shots fired call brought the police to defendant’s house, and witnesses said the shooter was inside. That was a sufficient exigent circumstance for an entry and a protective sweep. State v. Thomas, 2010 Ohio 4627, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 3915 (5th Dist. September 24, 2010).*

“Enactment of a statute that permits self-help repossession does not amount to the significant state involvement necessary for the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to apply.” Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ryan, 2010 Ohio 4601, 189 Ohio App. 3d 560, 939 N.E.2d 891 (10th Dist. 2010).*

Defendant who was under constructive arrest in the hospital after a DWI accident was subject to a taking of his blood, and it was reasonable in this case. State v. May, 2010 Ohio 4594, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 3879 (5th Dist. September 24, 2010).*

The fact defendant seemed nervous when two detectives walk into a bar and announce themselves is not reasonable suspicion for a patdown. There were no facts justifying a patdown. State v. Gilmer, 2010 Ohio 4631, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 3905 (5th Dist. September 27, 2010).*

Defendant’s attempting to go the wrong way out of a gated community was not a violation of any traffic law, so her stop was without reasonable suspicion. State v. James, 2010 Ohio 4556, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 3870 (11th Dist. September 24, 2010).*

Defendant was stopped for not using a signal as he left a known drug house. The officer saw cocaine in plain view. State v. Davis, 2010 Ohio 4636, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 3908 (9th Dist. September 29, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.