{"id":2408,"date":"2008-08-31T19:33:26","date_gmt":"2008-08-25T07:08:56","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-08-26T07:19:34","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2408","title":{"rendered":"OH9: Walking into the scene of a search still requires reasonable suspicion for a patdown"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant walked into a house that was being searched under a warrant in a high crime area. There was no reasonable suspicion as to defendant to justify his patdown. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/8\/2008\/2008-ohio-4247.pdf\">State v. Locklear<\/a>, 2008 Ohio 4247, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 3583 (8th Dist. August 21, 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*P29]  HN5That the house was located in a high-crime area &#8220;do[es] not diminish the requirements of the Fourth Amendment or its interpretation in <em>Terry<\/em>. The facts and circumstances before the officer must yet reasonably suggest that some specific criminal misconduct is afoot. That specificity requirement focuses on the criminal character of the act, not on its setting. Acts that are essentially neutral or ambiguous do not become specifically criminal in character because they occur in a high-crime area. Acts that are not specifically criminal in character do not become criminal because they are inapposite to their setting and, therefore, &#8216;suspicious.&#8217; The setting can inform the officer&#8217;s judgment, but it does not make the act criminal. In order to detain an individual to investigate for crime, some nexus between the individual and specific criminal conduct must reasonably exist and must be articulated by the officer.&#8221; <em>State v. Maldonado<\/em> (Sept. 24, 1993), 2nd Dist. No. 13530, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 4673.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Search of defendant was illegal, and the evidence of guilt without it was not overwhelming under harmless error analysis, so a new trial is granted. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aoc.state.nc.us\/www\/public\/coa\/opinions\/2008\/060164-2.htm\">State v. McDougald<\/a>, 2008 N.C. App. LEXIS 1530 (August 19, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2408\">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-2408","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2408","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=2408"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2408\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2408"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2408"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}