{"id":2203,"date":"2008-08-31T20:45:38","date_gmt":"2008-06-29T12:34:34","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-29T12:34:34","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2203","title":{"rendered":"OH: Hudson<\/em> is premised on a valid warrant, which this was not; lack of any reference to time makes warrant void"},"content":{"rendered":"

Affidavit for search “devoid of any temporal reference” was void and the good faith exception will not save it. The State’s invitation to apply Hudson<\/em><\/a> to save the warrant is rejected, too, because Hudson<\/em> is premised on a valid warrant, which this is not. State v. Lee<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 3157, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 2679 (1st Dist. June 27, 2008):<\/p>\n

[*P15] The state asserts that even if the affidavit failed to establish probable cause, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied here to overcome suppression of the evidence.<\/p>\n

[*P16] In support of its position, the state first urges us to reconsider our holding in Lauderdale in light of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Hudson v. Michigan<\/em>, which the state contends has severely restricted the application of the exclusionary rule. For the following reasons, we decline to do so.<\/p>\n

. . . [Hudson<\/em> is a vastly different situation.]<\/p>\n

[*P21] Unlike the interests at issue in Hudson<\/em>, the constitutional guarantee that a search warrant only issue upon a showing of probable cause protects every citizen’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence without justification. This was the interest police officers violated in the case before us and in Lauderdale<\/em>. And because this violation had everything to do with the seizure of the evidence sought, we hold that the exclusionary rule was the proper remedy to be applied. And notwithstanding the state’s argument to the contrary, our holding finds support in Hudson<\/em>. As stated by the Court, “[u]ntil a valid warrant has issued, citizens are entitled to shield ‘their persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ from the government’s scrutiny. Exclusion of the evidence obtained by a warrantless search vindicates that entitlement.” <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Officer’s personal knowledge defendant is driving on a suspended license is probable cause to stop him. People v. Pate<\/a>, 2008 NY Slip Op 5827, 52 A.D.3d 1118, 860 N.Y.S.2d 318 (3d Dept. 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-2203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2203","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=2203"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2203\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}