{"id":55212,"date":"2023-06-24T11:43:22","date_gmt":"2023-06-24T16:43:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=55212"},"modified":"2023-06-24T11:43:22","modified_gmt":"2023-06-24T16:43:22","slug":"oh1-exclusionary-rule-doesnt-apply-to-statutory-violations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=55212","title":{"rendered":"OH1: Exclusionary rule doesn&#8217;t apply to statutory violations"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The exclusionary rule applies only to constitutional violations, not statutory, and a violation of the probation search statute is not subject to exclusion. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/1\/2023\/2023-Ohio-2025.pdf\">State v. Borger<\/a>, 2023-Ohio-2025, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2044 (1st Dist. June 21, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWhile we note that instead of applying a Fourth Amendment analysis to the search of the jacket, the trial court improperly focused on a distinction between \u2018temporarily unattended\u2019 and \u2018truly unattended\u2019 property, a distinction not found in the law. However, we cannot address the trial court&#8217;s application of the law at this time, as the trial court&#8217;s factual findings are not supported by competent, credible evidence. \u2026 Because the evidence does not support the trial court&#8217;s factual findings, we must conclude that the trial court erred by granting Mr. Carpenter&#8217;s motion to suppress. The State&#8217;s sole assignment of error is sustained on that basis.\u201d Remanded. State v. Carpenter, 2023-Ohio-2014, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2017 (9th Dist. June 20, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The officer\u2019s inquiries about defendant\u2019s employment while seeking to write a warning ticket unreasonably extended the stop. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Boatright, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106551 (S.D. Ill. June 20, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The exclusionary rule applies only to constitutional violations, not statutory, and a violation of the probation search statute is not subject to exclusion. State v. Borger, 2023-Ohio-2025, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2044 (1st Dist. June 21, 2023). \u201cWhile we note &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=55212\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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":[48,14,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abandonment","category-exclusionary-rule","category-reasonable-suspicion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55212","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=55212"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55212\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55213,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55212\/revisions\/55213"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=55212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=55212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=55212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}