OH8: Defendant’s prison DNA validly connected him to a cold case

Defendant was connected to a 2003 rape by his DNA from a conviction in 2007, but police could not find the victim until 2010. The taking of the DNA in 2007 was reasonable. State v. Bolton, 2012 Ohio 169, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 122 (8th Dist. January 19, 2012).*

A search of defendant’s backpack on his arrest depended on the legality of his stop, which the trial court failed to find after having been asked by defense counsel. Remanded for findings on consent for the stop, although defendant was held by the arm when stopped. State v. Hines, 2012 Ohio 207, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 164 (2d Dist. January 20, 2012):*

[*P16] The trial court cannot be faulted for having followed the existing jurisprudence of this appellate district. Nevertheless, in view of our recent decision in State v. Gardner, supra, the trial court erred when it denied the motion to suppress based solely upon the fact that a warrant for Hines’s arrest was outstanding at the time of the search and seizure. The trial court never reached the factually contested issue of the voluntariness of the stop, or the issue of whether the officers had a sufficient suspicion of the existence of a weapon to have justified their having opened and searched Hines’s backpack, which was also the subject of conflicting testimony. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed, and this cause must be remanded for reconsideration of the suppression motion in light of State v. Gardner. The trial court need not hold another hearing on the suppression motion, although it may do so if the court would find another hearing helpful.

Defendant could not suppress seizure of his telephone records from the telephone company under Smith v. Maryland. State v. Neely, 2012 Ohio 212, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 165 (2d Dist. January 20, 2012).*