OH8: Not following up on obvious window tint violation didn’t make stop for that unreasonable

The officer reasonably believed the car’s tint violated the law because he literally could not see in it. The fact he didn’t follow up more on that doesn’t make it pretext. State v. McDonald, 2023-Ohio-464, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 444 (8th Dist. Feb. 16, 2023).*

Using a flashlight to see in a car during a traffic stop wasn’t an unreasonable search. State v. Travick, 2023-Ohio-460, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 428 (8th Dist. Feb. 16, 2023).*

Coram nobis denied. “Facts giving rise to his claims of search warrant authenticity and the Government’s alleged act of fraud upon the court were discoverable at the time of his suppression hearing in 2013, and thus could have been raised at the suppression hearing, on direct appeal, or in a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” United States v. Calzada, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3637 (5th Cir. Feb. 15, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Pretext, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.