A gang unit was driving in a four vehicle convoy into the hood. When they came upon a group of men, the cars all stopped and nine officers got out and surrounded them. All officers were armed with visible weapons, Tasers, and handcuffs. This was not a consensual police encounter, and there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the initial stop. State v. Hood, 2015-Ohio-102, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 98 (8th Dist. January 15, 2015). [In Cleveland, home of Terry v. Ohio.]<\/p>\n
Defendant was not \u201cin custody\u201d for Miranda purposes during a knock-and-talk search of his house. He wasn\u2019t restrained; he was moving about the house and talking with his wife and the officers. Then the meth was found and he was asked about it. Melton v. State<\/a>, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 266 (Tex. App. \u2013 Amarillo January 13, 2015).*<\/p>\n Officers got a call of a suspicious man looking in backyards. When they got to the scene, only defendant was around, and they stopped and questioned him. Pointing to his pocket, he was asked what was there, and he admitted he had a knife. That was cause for a patdown, and the trial court erred in suppressing. State v. Forester<\/a>, 2015-Ohio-98, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 96 (8th Dist. January 15, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A gang unit was driving in a four vehicle convoy into the hood. When they came upon a group of men, the cars all stopped and nine officers got out and surrounded them. All officers were armed with visible weapons, … Continue reading