Lexis sent 24 cases this morning, but 20 were updated citations, and one was insignificant.

Videotape showed that stop was lawful, but it did not support the state’s claim that continuing it was. State v. Collins, 2006 Ohio 4155, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4089 (2d Dist. August 11, 2006):

According to the State, the arresting officer “was concerned that there might be a weapon involved,” however nothing in the record supports this assertion. Collins was cooperative and did not engage in any conduct such as furtive movements that would warrant reasonable suspicion he was armed. Contextually, this was an uneventful misdemeanor traffic stop. It is evident instead that Collins’ unlawful arrest occasioned the search of his vehicle, and the shotgun “bears a sufficiently close relationship to the underlying illegality” to warrant exclusion. Id. The trial court erred in overruling Collins’ Motion to Suppress. Collins’ assignment of error is sustained. Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Note: When there is a videotape of the stop, defense counsel must look at the tape. The number of appellate cases commenting on their independent review of the tape and disagreeing or agreeing with the trial court has been noticably increasing. In addition, the videotape likely has the words of the defendant on it, and that would make it discoverable.

Plain feel during a patdown after police responded to a “shots fired” call revealed crack. The trial court credited the officer’s testimony that it felt “squishy” without being manipulated in violation of Dickerson. State v. Lawson, 2006 Ohio 4158, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4091 (2d Dist. August 11, 2006).*

Question of PC was close, and it was found insufficient. But, it was close enough for GFE to apply to save the search. State v. Fry, 2006 Ohio 4157, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 4093 (2d Dist. August 11, 2006):

We conclude that although the issue is close, the affidavit submitted to the magistrate was insufficient to establish the existence of probable cause. Because that issue is very close, and because an experienced prosecutor approved the application for the search warrant, we conclude that the officer who executed the search warrant was entitled to rely, in good faith, upon the warrant. Therefore, we agree with the State that the trial court erred in ordering the evidence suppressed.