OH1: Failure to follow probation search statute doesn’t require exclusion

Defendant’s argument that the probation search statute wasn’t followed doesn’t require exclusion. That’s for constitutional violations. State v. Clardy, 2022-Ohio-4300, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 4070 (1st Dist. Dec. 2, 2022); State v. Kellett, 2022-Ohio-4340, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 4088 (5th Dist. Dec. 5, 2022).

Defendant allegedly stole a computer from his former employer and tried to sell it on eBay. They reported it to the police who got a search warrant for defendant’s place. A representative of the employer was there for the search and identified their computer open on the bed. The officer touched the mousepad and child porn came up. The computer was seized and more child pornography was found. The plea was unconditional, so he couldn’t appeal. United States v. Powell, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 33275 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2022).*

Defendant’s argument that the officer’s testimony didn’t add up to reasonable suspicion is based on a credibility argument. There was reasonable suspicion on the totality. United States v. Pierre, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217512 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.