OH5: Merely being drunk in the Sheriff’s Office lobby isn’t a crime justifying a search

Defendant’s being merely drunk in the lobby of the sheriff’s office wasn’t reasonable suspicion of a crime because the officers didn’t see how he got there (i.e., did he drive himself). State v. Mast, 2019-Ohio-4644, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4698 (5th Dist. Nov. 8, 2019).*

The trial court’s findings of reasonable suspicion from defendant’s weaving within her lane and almost striking the curb was supported by the evidence, and it’s affirmed. State v. Folan, 2019-Ohio-4624, Ohio App. LEXIS 4672 (9th Dist. Nov. 12, 2019).*

“In considering all of these facts under the totality of the circumstances, and mindful of the deference given to a magistrate’s decision regarding the existence of probable cause, we find the search warrant affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the residence to be searched. … Accordingly, we conclude the magistrate had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed for the issuance of a search warrant of Young’s residence, and the trial court thus did not err in denying Young’s motion to suppress.” State v. Young, 2019-Ohio-4639, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4682 (10th Dist. Nov. 12, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.