{"id":4932,"date":"2010-11-26T08:29:35","date_gmt":"2010-11-26T08:29:35","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-11-26T08:29:35","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4932","title":{"rendered":"OH10: Flight after agreeing to talk to officers is RS"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant agreed to talk to the officers and then fled. That gave reasonable suspicion. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/10\/2010\/2010-ohio-5714.pdf\">State v. Banks<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 5714, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 4809 (10th Dist. November 23, 2010)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*P44] \u201cAlthough \u2018[a] suspect is \u201cfree to leave\u201d a non-seizure interview, *** when he does so by abruptly bolting after having consented to talk, the officers are free to draw the natural conclusions.\u2019\u201d Moyer at P22, quoting State v. Holloway (Sept. 28, 2000), 10th Dist. No. 99AP-1455, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4430. \u201cHeadlong flight&#8211;wherever it occurs&#8211;is the consummate act of evasion: it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=14848456241848254334&amp;q=wardlow&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Illinois v. Wardlow<\/a> (2000), 528 U.S. 119, 124, 120 S.Ct. 673, 676, 145 L. Ed. 2d 570.<\/p>\n<p>[*P45]  When appellant bolted from the interview area, and even more so when he reached towards his waistband while running as the officers pursued, the officers were justified in concluding that they had before them specific and articulable facts to support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity warranting an investigative stop.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>After a controlled buy from a hotel room, officers sought a search warrant and determined that they would detain the occupants who left the room when they returned. They were stopped and taken into the room, but officers were directed not to search until the warrant was signed. When they were notified it was, the search commenced. There is no requirement that the search warrant be physically present at the time of the search. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/5\/2010\/2010-ohio-5704.pdf\">State v. Davis<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 5704, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 4797 (5th Dist. November 15, 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>The search of defendant\u2019s car for a weapon after his traffic stop was valid based on his furtive movements, not the search incident doctrine or the automobile exception. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/8\/2010\/2010-ohio-5765.pdf\">State v. Lanier<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 5765, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 4829 (8th Dist. November 24, 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>Seizure of plaintiff\u2019s computers under a valid search warrant and turning them over to the FBI for analysis resulting in loss of the hard drives did not state a claim against the state.  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/13\/2010\/2010-ohio-5691.pdf\">Ferguson v. Ohio State Highway Patrol<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 5691, 2010 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 325 (Court of Claims October 27, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4932\">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-4932","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4932","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=4932"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4932\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}