OH10: Window tint violation justified impoundment and inventory, even though discretionary

Under the inventory policy, the police had the discretion to impound vehicles with excessive window tint, even though they did not apply impoundment uniformly. State v. Hall-Johnson, 2022-Ohio-3512, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3308 (10th Dist. Sep. 30, 2022).

An investigation is not a search, so a police department does not need to show reasonable suspicion to start an internal investigation. And, even if there was a Fourth Amendment violation in the investigation, the exclusionary rule does not apply to police discipline proceedings. Scatchell v. Bd. of Fire & Police Commissioners for Melrose Park, 2022 IL App (1st) 201361, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 423 (Sep. 30, 2022).

Police got a search warrant for defendant’s cell phone in a murder investigation, and they recovered a Google search request for “how do you suffocate?” “Accordingly, we reject defendant’s fourth amendment argument and conclude the officers involved in the underlying encounter did not make a show of authority which would cause a reasonable person not to feel free to leave. … In addition, because we find the reenactment was consensual at the outset and did not implicate the fourth amendment, it cannot be said defendant’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to raise this argument in his motion to suppress evidence.” People v. Logan, 2022 IL App (4th) 210492, 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 424 (Sep. 30, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Custody, Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.