OH6: Refusing consent to search cell phone can’t be sentencing aggravator

Defendant had a constitutional right to refuse consent to search his cell phone, and the trial court erred by considering that as an aggravating factor in sentencing. State v. Dawes, 2025-Ohio-2576, 2025 Ohio App. LEXIS 2500 (6th Dist. July 22, 2025).

Plaintiff’s claim that he was arrested without probable cause doesn’t fly here. There clearly was arguable probable cause. Urda v. Sokso, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 18107 (3d Cir. July 22, 2025).*

There was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop when the officer approached him and he fled. United States v. Richardson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139158 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2025).*

Defendant doesn’t show a reason for the court to adopt a different standard for reasonable suspicion under the state constitution. There was reasonable suspicion here. Copado v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 5208 (Tex. App. – Dallas July 22, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Cell phones, Consent, Reasonable suspicion, State constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.