OH10: Suicidal domestic call followed by ShotSpotter alert was RS

Police had a call about a domestic situation with a suicidal man with a gun. Shortly thereafter, there was a ShotSpotter alert of 20 gunshots from a house nearby. Officers arrived and patted down those found there. This is substantially factually similar to State v. Hairston, 2019-Ohio-1622, 156 Ohio St.3d 363, 126 N.E.3d 1132 (2019), permitting a frisk when police arrive because of objective belief in a firearm being involved. In re A.M.J., 2024-Ohio-5889 (10th Dist. Dec. 17, 2024).

A Fourth Amendment claim can’t be raised in a successor habeas. In re Foreman, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 31842 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2024).*

The good faith exception applied to the T-Mobile warrants. While the affiant officer didn’t read all the reports of the others involved, he talked with them, and knew about the investigation. It was objectively reasonable to believe there was probable cause. United States v. Henderson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226723 (D. Minn. Dec. 16, 2024).*

Failing to come to a full stop at a stop sign justified this stop. United States v. Rivera, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226799 (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Emergency / exigency, Good faith exception, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.