{"id":4766,"date":"2011-01-11T15:53:40","date_gmt":"2010-10-11T03:28:01","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-10-11T03:28:01","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4766","title":{"rendered":"OH3: Defendant abandoned his cell phone with his jacket he slipped out of to avoid arrest"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant abandoned his jacket, where his cell phone was found, when he slipped out of the jacket to get away from a Wal-Mart loss prevention employee who was trying to stop him. Thus, the cell phone was abandoned, too. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/3\/2010\/2010-ohio-4816.pdf\">State v. Dailey<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 4816, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 4068 (3d Dist. October 4, 2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*P16]  In this particular case, we believe that it was clear that Dailey voluntarily abandoned his cell phone when he slipped out of his coat and left it and its contents behind in order to escape being detained by a Wal-Mart store employee. When Stafford reached Dailey at the Wal-Mart sliding doors, Dailey turned around and tried to elbow him in the face. A physical altercation ensued between the two, which eventually spilled into the store&#8217;s parking lot. At one point, Stafford grabbed Dailey&#8217;s jacket, but Dailey managed to maneuver his way out of the jacket and quickly ran off, leaving his jacket in Stafford&#8217;s possession. At no time thereafter did Dailey request his jacket or any of its contents be returned to him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>A 911 cell phone call about a possible drunk driver did not support defendant\u2019s stop because there was no showing of any connection to defendant\u2019s vehicle and the call. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.state.in.us\/judiciary\/opinions\/pdf\/10051001par.pdf\">State v. Renzulli<\/a>, 935<br \/>\nN.E.2d 200 (Ind. App. 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>The victim of an armed robbery gave a description to an officer who told other officers. Defendant matched that description, and that was reasonable suspicion for his patdown. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.state.in.us\/judiciary\/opinions\/pdf\/10051001bbs.pdf\">Brooks v. State<\/a>, 934<br \/>\nN.E.2d 1234 (Ind. App. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4766\">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-4766","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4766","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=4766"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4766\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4766"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4766"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4766"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}