{"id":3217,"date":"2009-12-24T07:17:29","date_gmt":"2009-06-30T07:55:50","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-06-30T07:55:50","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3217","title":{"rendered":"OH8: “[P]olice may not stop an individual for the sole purpose of compelling him to identify himself”"},"content":{"rendered":"

“[P]olice may not stop an individual for the sole purpose of compelling him to identify himself.” State v. Holly<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 3081, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2604 (8th Dist. June 25, 2009):<\/p>\n

[*P15] Applying these principles, we find that the investigatory stop of Holly was unlawful. Despite the State’s argument that Holly was stopped because the police had a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in drug activity, Detective Mitchell’s testimony was clear: the only reason Holly was stopped was to determine his identity. In America, however, the police may not stop an individual for the sole purpose of compelling him to identify himself.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant 17 year old voluntarily accompanied three detectives to the police station for questioning. The court rejects that this 17 year old would have thought that she had to go with them. State v. Rogers<\/a>, 19 So. 3d 487 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009), released for publication November 13, 2009.*<\/p>\n

Defendant’s possession of a samuri sword and other knives justified his patdown. State v. Ruff<\/a>, 229 Ore. App. 98, 211 P.3d 277 (2009).*<\/p>\n

Merely asking if officers can search a car is not a seizure under Mendenhall<\/a>. The driver, however, was asked for consent, and defendant passenger was asked to get out of the car, and this was reasonable. People v. James<\/a>, 391 Ill. App. 3d 1045, 910 N.E.2d 168, 331 Ill. Dec. 95 (2009).*<\/p>\n

A mere request to see identification or to look at belongings is not a seizure. State v. Crum<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 3012, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2546 (2d Dist. June 19, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Meth labs pose a danger, so exigent circumstances exist for an entry. State v. Timofeev<\/a>, 2009 Ohio 3007, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 2624 (9th Dist. June 24, 2009).*<\/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-3217","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3217","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=3217"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3217\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3217"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3217"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3217"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}