Search and Seizure - Miscellaneous Issues Relating to Search and Seizure


Franklin County Criminal Law Casebook

Reproduced with permission from:
Timothy E. Pierce and the Franklin County Public Defender Office

Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001), 121 S.Ct. 1281 -- A state-operated hospital's performance of a diagnostic test to detect the presence of drugs in the urine of pregnant women for use by law enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment if the patient has not consented to the procedure.
Illinois v. McArthur (2001), 121 S.Ct. 946 -- No Fourth Amendment violation found where police prevented defendant from entering his residence unattended while search warrant was being obtained.
State v. Griffin (1999), 133 Ohio App. 3d 490 -- "Police Oriented Problem Solving" (POPS) program exploited strict enforcement of a loitering ordinance in a "problem," or high crime area as the basis for the search incident to arrest of a person seen making brief contact with pedestrians and motorists. Finding passage of others was not legitimately impeded, there was no probable cause for the arrest and drugs seized should have been suppressed.
State v. Britton (1999), 135 Ohio App. 3d 151, 154 -- "When...the criminal charges related to the use of the lawfully seized motor vehicle are dismissed and the person entitled to possession of the vehicle is an innocent third party, that person is not liable for the expenses of towing and storage of the motor vehicle."
State v. Spriggs, 118 Ohio Misc. 2d 189, 2000-Ohio-2697 -- Common pleas court concludes local municipal court had authority to issue a search warrant related to an aggravated murder case pending in the common pleas court.
State v. Davis, 166 Ohio App. 3d 468, 2006-Ohio-1592 -- Defendant, after pleading no contest, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, in part based on pursuit of a suppression motion. That assignment of error was overruled, but the case was remanded for a hearing on a motion to withdraw the no contest plea. The plea was vacated, the motion was reargued and again overruled, and another no contest plea was entered. Res judicata does not bar appeal of the ruling on the motion as the reversal made the initial ruling interlocutory, subject to reconsideration. Applying the law of the case doctrine, sufficiency of the affidavit may be challenged as that issue was not the focus of the first appeal.
State, ex rel. Luke, v. Corrigan (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 86 -- An action in replevin is the appropriate remedy for the recovery of property obtained in connection with a regularly issued search warrant.
City of West Covina v. Perkins (1999), 525 U.S. 234 -- When property has been seized in the process of a criminal investigation, the Due Process Clause does not require that the police give notice as to state law remedies for obtaining its return. Such remedies may be readily ascertained from published statutes and case law.
State v. Ingram (1998), 125 Ohio App. 3d 411 -- Even when the initial detention is illegal, evidence seized from a person arrested pursuant to an outstanding capias warrant will not be suppressed, as such an individual had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
State v. Barzacchini (1994), 96 Ohio App. 3d 440, 455-457 -- Disposition of claim that samples should have been preserved for independent testing by the defense hinges on drums of hazardous waste having remained on defendant's premises. Compare California v. Trombetta (1984), 467 U.S. 479; Arizona v. Yongblood (1988), 488 U.S. 51.
In re: Search Warrant #5077/91 (1994), 96 Ohio App. 3d 737 -- Pharmacist sought release of sealed affidavit which would have revealed identity of a non-confidential informant: (1) No abuse of discretion found in order that affidavit be unsealed. (2) Order sealing affidavit had by its own terms expired after thirty days. (3) Efforts to interpose a public records claim of exemption fail.
Anderson v. Creighton (1987), 483 U.S. 653 -- Officers conducting an unlawful search are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity from civil liability if they can establish as a matter of law that a reasonable officer could have believed the search complied with the Fourth Amendment, even though it did not.
State v. Wilkinson (1996), 115 Ohio App. 3d 411 -- Whether or not the defendant's statement would have been suppressible based on illegality of search, Crim. R. 12(J) does not allow state to now attempt to prove its case based on the statement, having already appealed the ruling on the suppression motion.
State v. Felty (1981), 2 Ohio App. 3d 62, 64 -- "...(W)hen an otherwise available appeal is not taken from an adverse judgment or order of the trial court, the affected party is held to have acquiesced in that determination and, consequently, waived its right to assert error thereon on appeal of a related matter." In this case, by not appealing finding initial seizure was unlawful, state was hit with finding search incident to resulting arrest was also illegal.
State v. Biddings (1988), 49 Ohio App. 3d 83 -- An order refusing to quash a search warrant for a blood sample to be used for DNA analysis is a final appealable order.
State v. Diana (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 199 -- The tampering with evidence statute is not unconstitutionally vague. Any person of ordinary intelligence should know that an investigation of his criminal activity is underway when the police appear with a search warrant.

Publishing Information

Published by Timothy E. Pierce
Copyright © Franklin County Public Defender and Timothy E. Pierce, 2015
Contents may not be duplicated without express permission.