OH6: Return of property can’t be by motion to suppress after PG

Defendant’s motion for return of his cell phone after his guilty plea was pled as a motion to suppress. Denied. He can do it over if he gets it right. State v. Cousino, 2024-Ohio-114, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 110 (6th Dist. Jan. 12, 2024).

There was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s car, and that reasonable suspicion ripened into probable cause. Moreover, inevitable discovery applies because the car would have been impounded and inventoried in any event. United States v. Corbett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6443 (D. Me. Jan. 12, 2024).*

Officers had a vehicle description and description of a distinctive hat of one occupant of those involved in a Walmart theft. He saw the vehicle and a man with the hat. That was reasonable suspicion for the stop. “This was not merely a ‘hunch.’” Probable cause developed from that and a search incident was valid. United States v. Lewis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6515 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.