{"id":5290,"date":"2012-04-05T10:06:45","date_gmt":"2011-03-16T00:12:45","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-03-15T08:39:50","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5290","title":{"rendered":"OH2: Stop of car was without RS driver had suspended DL; could have been somebody other than RO"},"content":{"rendered":"

The stop of this car was based on the fact that the officer suspected that the registered owner\u2019s license was suspended, but he had no reason to believe that the registered owner was driving, so the stop was unreasonable. State v. Leveck<\/a>, 2011 Ohio 1135, 196 Ohio App. 3d 26, 962 N.E.2d 316 (2d Dist. 2011)*:<\/p>\n

[*P16] On these facts, Gustwiller\u2019s suspicion was not constitutionally sufficient \u2014not because it was irrational, but because the record does not support a sufficient basis in the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn from those facts. Because the stop was not based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, it was unlawful. Therefore any evidence obtained as a result of the stop must be excluded.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The record supports the conclusion that defendant\u2019s blood was drawn within minutes of the close of the three hour window, so the motion to suppress is denied. State v. Hollowell<\/a>, 2011 Ohio 1130, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 969 (2d Dist. March 11, 2011).*<\/p>\n

Officers entered defendant\u2019s home and storage building while waiting for search warrants, but the search warrants had nothing to do with those entries, which could be described as protecting the status quo under Segura<\/a>. State v. Parker<\/a>, 2011 Ohio 1059, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 973 (8th Dist. March 10, 2011).*<\/p>\n

Defendant was suspected of robbing a store. His mother appeared at the store and was questioned by the police, and she consented to a search of the house that produced clothing hidden in a crawl space similar to what was worn in the robbery. Her consent was valid. Jupiter v. State<\/a>, 308 Ga. App. 386, 707 S.E.2d 592 (2011).*<\/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-5290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5290","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=5290"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5290\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}