{"id":9672,"date":"2013-10-28T13:53:56","date_gmt":"2013-10-28T09:04:14","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-10-28T09:04:14","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9672","title":{"rendered":"OH6: Officers had RS defendant was armed; question about where gun was didn&#8217;t warrant suppression"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Officers arguably violated Miranda when they asked defendant where his gun was during his stop. Inevitable discovery applies, however, because the officers had reasonable suspicion under <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=4292797909531857390&amp;q=Michigan%2Bv.%2Blong&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Long<\/a> that he was armed. He was recently involved in a domestic dispute with a firearm. They\u2019d searched for it and didn\u2019t find it, so they asked. Second search not suppressed. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/6\/2013\/2013-ohio-4739.pdf\">State v. Jones-Bateman<\/a>, 2013-Ohio-4739, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 4952 (6th Dist. October 25, 2013):<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>[*P19]  Under these circumstances, we find that the search of the vehicle and the seizure of the handgun were permissible under the automobile exception set forth in Long, supra. While appellant&#8217;s son was removed from the car, he had not been arrested. Accordingly, he still posed a danger to police. In Long, at 1047, the court recognized that &#8220;investigative detentions involving suspects in vehicles are especially fraught with danger to police officers.&#8221; In further explaining those dangers, the court noted the increased risk to officer safety where a suspect has not been arrested and could re-enter the vehicle, thereby gaining access to weapons inside. Id. at 1052. In the present case, although appellant was under arrest, the officers had reasonable cause to believe that appellant&#8217;s son could be a threat to their safety and thus were justified in searching the vehicle. The lower court did not err in denying the motion to suppress and the first assignment of error is not well-taken.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9672\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9672","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9672\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}