{"id":6297,"date":"2011-12-21T09:21:48","date_gmt":"2011-11-21T06:24:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-11-21T06:24:13","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6297","title":{"rendered":"CA8: Controlled buy on a wire inside a house justified entry on exigent circumstances"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In three related cases, entry into defendant\u2019s home after a controlled buy heard on a wire was with exigent circumstances. As to the latter case, a cell phone is so ubiquitous that it is not a \u201ccriminal tool.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/8\/2011\/2011-ohio-5651.pdf\">State v. Freeman<\/a>, 2011 Ohio 5651, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 4637 (8th Dist. November 3, 2011);  <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/8\/2011\/2011-ohio-5918.pdf\">State v. Atkinson<\/a>, 2011 Ohio 5918, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 4848 (November 17, 2011); <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/8\/2011\/2011-ohio-5919.pdf\">State v. Creighton<\/a>, 2011 Ohio 5919, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 4842 (8th Dist. November 17, 2011).<\/p>\n<p>Officers were at an apartment complex responding to a man with a gun call, and they were ultimately directed to a Buick in the parking lot which they looked in with a flashlight and saw drugs. The search of the car thereafter was valid. Even though the driver was not right there, it was still inherently mobile. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/11\/2011\/2011-ohio-5860.pdf\">State v. Miller<\/a>, 2011 Ohio 5860, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 4798 (11th Dist. November 14, 2011).*<\/p>\n<p>Police got a call about a suspicious man in a purple car. Defendant was seen in the car and observed going up to the side of a house then to the porch and back to the car. The officer had probable cause to believe that defendant was there to break into houses, and his stop was justified. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/6\/2011\/2011-ohio-5909.pdf\">State v. Williams<\/a>, 2011 Ohio 5909, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 4825 (6th Dist. November 10, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6297\">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-6297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6297","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=6297"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6297\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}