{"id":1632,"date":"2007-12-26T09:30:49","date_gmt":"2007-12-26T09:30:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-12-26T09:30:13","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1632","title":{"rendered":"Once officer determined defendant was not the suspect, he should have been let go"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>When the officer determined that the man he just handcuffed was not the suspect he was looking for, the continuation of the stop became unlawful. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/newpdf\/1\/2007\/2007-ohio-6874.pdf\">State v. Gunn<\/a>, 2007 Ohio 6874, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 6035 (1st Dist. December 21, 2007):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Regardless of whether Gunn had been properly stopped based on the confidential informant&#8217;s tip, the moment that Officer Hennie learned that Gunn was not the suspect, the reason for detaining Gunn dissipated, and Gunn should have been free to leave unless there were some reasonable, articulable facts giving rise to a suspicion of illegal activity. Here, there were no such facts presented by the state. Officer Hennie testified that he had initially stopped Gunn because he matched the description of the suspect and because Gunn was in the area where the drug purchase had allegedly occurred. He did not testify to any other behavior that would have led him to suspect that Gunn had been involved in illegal activity. Thus, Gunn&#8217;s detention became illegal when he was kept handcuffed and on his knees, after the police had learned that Gunn was not the suspect. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Probable cause to search defendant&#8217;s car permitted police to seize a pair of shoes to match them to footprints at the scene of the crime. The fact the car was parked on private property was of no moment when it was found. It had just been driven and was mobile, and potentially mobile is the question. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/newpdf\/4\/2007\/2007-ohio-6909.pdf\">State v. Miller<\/a>, 2007 Ohio 6909, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 6045 (4th Dist. December 12, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1632\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1632","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}