{"id":1701,"date":"2008-02-17T11:25:35","date_gmt":"2008-01-18T04:47:48","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-01-18T04:47:48","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1701","title":{"rendered":"OH: No right of confrontation to bar CI’s hearsay at suppression hearing"},"content":{"rendered":"

Right of confrontation does not apply in pretrial proceedings like a suppression hearing. State v. Miller<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 100, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 77 (5th Dist. January 11, 2008):<\/p>\n

Appellant contends the out-of-court statements of the confidential informant offered by the police officer at the suppression hearing are “testimonial” under Crawford<\/em>; however, “[t]he right to confrontation, which includes the right to physically face and cross-examine witnesses, is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial proceedings.” State v. Dunn<\/em>, Washington App.No. 03CA47. 2004 Ohio 2883, P 11, citing Pennsylvania v. Ritchie <\/em>(1987), 480 U.S. 39, 52-53, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40. Although this appears to be a question of first impression in this Court, the Sixth District Court of Appeals has concluded that the rule of Crawford applies to the actual criminal trial, not to a suppression hearing. See State v. Massie<\/em>, Ottawa App.No. OT-04-007, 2005 Ohio 1678, P 16. Upon our review of Crawford and its progeny, we decline to extend the rule to pretrial suppression hearings under the circumstances of the case sub judice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant had an expectation of privacy in a locked footlocker located in a basement storage area that others had access to. It was a proper target of a search under a warrant, however, because it could have contained the object of the search: drugs. Commonwealth v. Pierre<\/a>, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 58, 879 N.E.2d 131 (2008).*<\/p>\n

Search of defendant’s jacket was not justified by consent, exigent circumstances, or any other exception that produced drugs used against him. However, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Tallant<\/a>, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 21 (January 14, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/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-1701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1701","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=1701"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1701\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}