OH1: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations

The exclusionary rule applies only to constitutional violations, not statutory, and a violation of the probation search statute is not subject to exclusion. State v. Borger, 2023-Ohio-2025, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2044 (1st Dist. June 21, 2023).

“While we note that instead of applying a Fourth Amendment analysis to the search of the jacket, the trial court improperly focused on a distinction between ‘temporarily unattended’ and ‘truly unattended’ property, a distinction not found in the law. However, we cannot address the trial court’s application of the law at this time, as the trial court’s factual findings are not supported by competent, credible evidence. … Because the evidence does not support the trial court’s factual findings, we must conclude that the trial court erred by granting Mr. Carpenter’s motion to suppress. The State’s sole assignment of error is sustained on that basis.” Remanded. State v. Carpenter, 2023-Ohio-2014, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2017 (9th Dist. June 20, 2023).*

The officer’s inquiries about defendant’s employment while seeking to write a warning ticket unreasonably extended the stop. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Boatright, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106551 (S.D. Ill. June 20, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.