OH8: Extraterritorial stop by LEO doesn’t violate 4A, and exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations

An extraterritorial stop by an officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The exclusionary rule doesn’t apply to statutory violations, here especially because of public safety concerns. City of Fairview Park v. Bowman, 2023-Ohio-4210, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4047 (8th Dist. Nov. 22, 2023).

Plaintiff here made a joke Twitter post on March 20, 2020 that the local sheriff had issued an order to shoot Covid infected people “on sight.” They arrested him for a terroristic threat, but the case was later dismissed. A panel of the Fifth Circuit held it was not a threat and was protected speech. Thus, his arrest violated the First Amendment because there was no probable cause, and thus no qualified immunity. Bailey v. Iles, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 31013 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (on rehearing).* [This is a significant free speech case; not much of a search and seizure case.]

Defendant’s appellate counsel didn’t raise a suppression issue he wanted raised. There is no prejudice because he couldn’t have won on that issue even if presented. Defendant shot his wife and then called 911. A search warrant was prepared with a typo that was acknowledged. Settled law showed he would never have prevailed. Therefore, no IAC. Turner v. State, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 473 (Nov. 22, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Qualified immunity, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.