{"id":15250,"date":"2015-01-01T01:58:26","date_gmt":"2015-01-01T06:58:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=15250"},"modified":"2014-12-30T19:00:17","modified_gmt":"2014-12-31T00:00:17","slug":"oh5-six-weeks-after-second-controlled-buy-not-stale-where-theres-ongoing-drug-dealing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=15250","title":{"rendered":"OH5: Six weeks after second controlled buy not stale where there’s ongoing drug dealing"},"content":{"rendered":"

There were two controlled buys of marijuana from defendant\u2019s store on May 3d & 21st. A third buy was July 2d but the test results weren\u2019t back when a search warrant was obtained on July 3d. The July 2d buy was not a controlled substance. Nonetheless, defendant was in the business of selling marijuana from his store and the six weeks from the second controlled buy to the search warrant wasn\u2019t stale for Fourth Amendment purposes. Defendant also was known to sell analogs and food stamps from the business. It was an ongoing operation. State v. Hmedian<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-5728, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 5545 (5th Dist. December 22, 2014).<\/p>\n

On \u201cthe totality of the circumstances, Officer Kolek had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle driven by Mr. Shankel based both on his knowledge that the registered owner had an expired license and his observation of the driver.\u201d State v. Shankel<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-5712, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 5517 (9th Dist. December 29, 2014).*<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s 2255 claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging a ping order that was based on a court order with a showing of probable cause is denied since no case says that it was unlawful in the first place. Pinging the cell phone while he was home was not a search of the home\u2013it only confirmed he was home. United States v. Ayers, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177872 (S.D. Ohio December 29, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There were two controlled buys of marijuana from defendant\u2019s store on May 3d & 21st. A third buy was July 2d but the test results weren\u2019t back when a search warrant was obtained on July 3d. The July 2d buy … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,35,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gps-tracking-data","category-reasonable-suspicion","category-staleness"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15250","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15250"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15250\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15251,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15250\/revisions\/15251"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}