CASE LAW

Does an officer have to tell me I can refuse a search?

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · 412 U.S. 218 (1973)

Consent to a search must be voluntary, judged on the totality of the circumstances. The Court held that knowledge of the right to refuse is one factor in that assessment and that the prosecution does not have to prove the person knew they could refuse.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can an officer stop and pat me down without arresting me?

Terry v. Ohio · 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

An officer who can point to specific facts suggesting criminal activity may stop a person briefly to investigate, and where the officer reasonably believes that person is armed and dangerous may pat down their outer clothing for weapons. The Court described the pat down as a search for weapons and limited it to that purpose.

Since Minnesota v. Dickerson later addressed what an officer may seize when a pat down for weapons turns up something else.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Does it matter that the traffic violation was an excuse to stop me?

Whren v. United States · 517 U.S. 806 (1996)

The Court held that where an officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred, the stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment regardless of the officer's actual motivation, and that an officer's subjective intentions play no part in that analysis.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

What happens to evidence the police got unlawfully?

Mapp v. Ohio · 367 U.S. 643 (1961)

Evidence obtained by a search that violates the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state criminal prosecution. The Court applied to the states the exclusionary rule it had previously applied in federal courts.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

When do they have to read me my rights?

Miranda v. Arizona · 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

The Court held that before questioning a person in custody, officers must warn that the person may remain silent, that anything said can be used against them, and that they have a right to counsel, appointed if they cannot afford one. It held that statements obtained by custodial questioning without those warnings are inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief.

Since Berkemer v. McCarty later addressed whether an ordinary traffic stop counts as custody, and J.D.B. v. North Carolina addressed how a child's age bears on that question.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can they come into my house to arrest me without a warrant?

Payton v. New York · 445 U.S. 573 (1980)

Absent consent or exigent circumstances, the Fourth Amendment prohibits officers from entering a home without a warrant to make a routine felony arrest. The Court treated the entrance to the home as the line the amendment draws most firmly.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can an officer order a passenger out of the car?

Maryland v. Wilson · 519 U.S. 408 (1997)

An officer conducting a lawful traffic stop may order passengers out of the vehicle for the duration of the stop, extending to passengers the rule stated for drivers in Pennsylvania v. Mimms.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Does it matter where I am standing when I speak or film?

Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn. · 460 U.S. 37 (1983)

The Court described categories of government property for First Amendment purposes. It held that in a traditional public forum such as a street or park, content based restrictions face strict scrutiny while reasonable time, place and manner rules are permitted, and that in a non public forum a restriction need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can I be arrested for what I said to an officer?

City of Houston v. Hill · 482 U.S. 451 (1987)

An ordinance making it unlawful to interrupt an officer in the performance of their duties was overbroad under the First Amendment. The Court stated that the freedom to verbally oppose or challenge police action without risking arrest is a principal characteristic distinguishing a free nation from a police state.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

How soon do I see a judge after a warrantless arrest?

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin · 500 U.S. 44 (1991)

The Court held that a judicial determination of probable cause within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest is generally prompt enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. It stated that a hearing inside that window may still be unreasonable where it was delayed for delay's sake or to gather additional evidence.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can an officer order me out of the car during a stop?

Pennsylvania v. Mimms · 434 U.S. 106 (1977)

An officer who has lawfully stopped a vehicle may order the driver out of it. The Court weighed the additional intrusion as slight against the officer safety interest in the encounter.

Since Maryland v. Wilson extended the same rule to passengers.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can they search my phone because they arrested me?

Riley v. California · 573 U.S. 373 (2014)

Officers must generally obtain a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone seized from a person who has been arrested. The Court held that the search incident to arrest exception, built around officer safety and evidence destruction, does not carry over to the data on a phone.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Do I get an appointed lawyer on a misdemeanour?

Argersinger v. Hamlin · 407 U.S. 25 (1972)

The Court held that no person may be imprisoned for any offence, whether classified as petty, misdemeanour or felony, unless they were represented by counsel at trial or waived it.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Is a traffic stop custody for Miranda purposes?

Berkemer v. McCarty · 468 U.S. 420 (1984)

The Court held that the roadside questioning of a driver during an ordinary traffic stop is not custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings, while noting that a stop can become custodial where the person is subjected to treatment rendering them in custody for practical purposes.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Does the prosecutor have to hand over what helps me?

Brady v. Maryland · 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

The Court held that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favourable to an accused, where that evidence is material to guilt or punishment, violates due process irrespective of the good faith of the prosecution.

Since Giglio v. United States applied the rule to evidence bearing on the credibility of a witness.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Am I seized as a passenger when the car gets pulled over?

Brendlin v. California · 551 U.S. 249 (2007)

The Court held that a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and may therefore challenge the lawfulness of the stop.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can my landlord let the police into my rental?

Chapman v. United States · 365 U.S. 610 (1961)

A landlord's consent does not authorise a search of premises leased to a tenant. The Court held the tenant's Fourth Amendment protection is not defeated by the landlord's right of entry for other purposes.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can one person let police in over another's objection?

Georgia v. Randolph · 547 U.S. 103 (2006)

The Court held that where one occupant consents to a search of a shared home and another occupant is physically present and expressly refuses, the search is unreasonable as to the occupant who objected.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Do I get a lawyer if I cannot afford one?

Gideon v. Wainwright · 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

A state must provide counsel to a defendant charged with a serious offence who cannot afford one. The Court held the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to the states.

Since Argersinger v. Hamlin extended the right to misdemeanour cases carrying actual imprisonment.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can they break in because they heard something inside?

Kentucky v. King · 563 U.S. 452 (2011)

The Court held that the exigent circumstances exception applies where police did not create the exigency by engaging in or threatening conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. It reasoned that knocking and announcing their presence does not, by itself, disqualify officers from relying on the exception.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

How long can they hold me at a traffic stop?

Rodriguez v. United States · 575 U.S. 348 (2015)

The Court held that a traffic stop may last no longer than is needed to address the violation that justified it and attend to related safety concerns, and that extending a completed stop to conduct a dog sniff, absent independent reasonable suspicion, exceeds that limit.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Does asking for the bodycam as a public record affect my case?

State v. Athon · 136 Ohio St.3d 43, 2013-Ohio-1956

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that where an accused directly or indirectly makes a public records request for information that could have been obtained from the prosecutor through discovery, the request is the equivalent of a demand for discovery and triggers the reciprocal discovery duty under the criminal rule.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

What lets an officer pat me down once I am already stopped?

State v. Bobo · 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988)

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that where an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is armed, judged on the totality of the circumstances, a protective search may be initiated for the safety of the officer and others. The court set out the factors that counted on those facts, which included the area, the hour, the officer's experience, and movements consistent with hiding something.

Since State v. Evans states the limits of what such a search may then do, and Minnesota v. Dickerson governs what may be seized during one.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

State v. Dejournett · 2026-Ohio-640

No summary written yet. The cite is what the guide carries and the link goes to the decision. A holding invented to fill this space would read better than one written from the opinion and be worth nothing, so this row stays empty until somebody reads it.

Read the decision→

State v. Lewis (2026) · 2026-Ohio-1382

No summary written yet. The cite is what the guide carries and the link goes to the decision. A holding invented to fill this space would read better than one written from the opinion and be worth nothing, so this row stays empty until somebody reads it.

Read the decision→

Can an officer guess my speed by eye and convict me on it?

Barberton v. Jenney · 126 Ohio St.3d 5, 2010-Ohio-2420

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a trained and certified officer's unaided visual estimation of a vehicle's speed could support a conviction. The General Assembly responded the following year with a statute barring arrest, charge or conviction for most speed violations on an unaided visual estimation alone.

Since The statute the General Assembly wrote in response, ORC 4511.091, is what governs now. The Speed Limit section carries both.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can they jail me for not paying a fine I cannot afford?

Bearden v. Georgia · 461 U.S. 660 (1983)

The Court held that a court may not revoke probation and imprison a defendant for failing to pay a fine or restitution without first inquiring into the reasons for non payment. It held that where the failure was not wilful and the person made bona fide efforts to pay, the court must consider alternatives to imprisonment.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can refusing a test be a separate crime?

Birchfield v. North Dakota · 579 U.S. 438 (2016)

The Court held that a breath test may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving without a warrant, and that a blood test may not. It held that a driver may not be criminally punished for refusing a blood test where no warrant was obtained.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can they come in without a warrant if someone is hurt?

Brigham City v. Stuart · 547 U.S. 398 (2006)

The Court held that officers may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury, and that the officers' subjective motivation does not control.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

How long do I have to bring a civil rights claim in Ohio?

Browning v. Pendleton (6th Cir.) · 869 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1989) (en banc)

The Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that federal civil rights claims under section 1983 arising in Ohio borrow Ohio's two year limitation period for personal injury actions. The statute creates no limitation period of its own, so the state period supplies it.

Sixth CircuitBinds the federal courts Ohio sits in, not Ohio state courts.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

How far can a city regulate where and when I protest?

Cox v. Louisiana · 379 U.S. 536 (1965)

The Court held that speech and assembly in public places may be subject to reasonable regulation of time, place and manner, and that a licensing scheme granting officials unfettered discretion over who may demonstrate, and where, cannot stand under the First Amendment.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can the state tell a city how to run its speed cameras?

Dayton v. State · 151 Ohio St.3d 168, 2017-Ohio-6909

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that statutory requirements placed on municipal traffic camera programmes, including that an officer be present at the device during operation, were an unconstitutional intrusion on municipal home rule.

Since The 2025 budget then removed provisions of that kind from the chapter, so the practical rule today comes from the statute as it now stands rather than from this decision alone. The Camera Tickets section carries both.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Does filming police count as protected activity even without commentary?

Fields v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir.) · 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017)

The Third Circuit held that the First Amendment protects the act of recording police activity in public, and that the protection does not depend on the person recording having expressed a criticism or intent at the time.

Since A Third Circuit decision does not bind Ohio courts. It is carried here as one of the circuits that has reached this question.

Another circuitBinds neither Ohio courts nor the federal courts here. Carried to show how that circuit answered.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can they bring a drug dog to my front door?

Florida v. Jardines · 569 U.S. 1 (2013)

Taking a drug detection dog onto the porch of a home to investigate what is inside is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the implied licence to approach a front door does not extend to bringing a dog there to gather evidence.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

What process do I get before probation is revoked?

Gagnon v. Scarpelli · 411 U.S. 778 (1973)

A probationer facing revocation is entitled to the same preliminary and final hearings described in Morrissey v. Brewer. Whether counsel must be appointed is decided case by case rather than as a categorical right.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Do they have to tell me about a deal with a witness?

Giglio v. United States · 405 U.S. 150 (1972)

Evidence bearing on the credibility of a witness, including a promise of leniency made to that witness, falls within the disclosure obligation stated in Brady where the witness's testimony is material.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

What happens if the court skips the explanation of circumstances on a no contest plea?

Girard v. Giordano · 155 Ohio St.3d 470, 2018-Ohio-5024

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the explanation of circumstances required on a no contest plea to a misdemeanour is a procedural protection rather than a measure of the sufficiency of the evidence. Where the step is missed the remedy is a remand rather than an end to the prosecution.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Is filming police in public protected?

Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir.) · 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)

The First Circuit held that a private citizen has a clearly established right to film government officials, including police officers, carrying out their duties in a public space, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

Since A First Circuit decision does not bind Ohio courts. It is carried here as one of the circuits that has reached this question.

Another circuitBinds neither Ohio courts nor the federal courts here. Carried to show how that circuit answered.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

What process does a student get before a suspension?

Goss v. Lopez · 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

The Court held that a student facing suspension from a public school for ten days or fewer must be given notice of the charges and, where those are denied, an explanation of the evidence and an opportunity to present their side. It stated that longer exclusions may require more formal procedures.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

What does it take to claim land I have been using for years?

Grace v. Koch · 81 Ohio St.3d 577, 1998-Ohio-607

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a party claiming title by adverse possession must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, exclusive possession and open, notorious, continuous and adverse use for twenty one years. Failure of proof on any one element defeats the whole claim, and use by the owner's permission is not adverse.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

What standard applies when an officer uses force on me?

Graham v. Connor · 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

The Court held that a claim of excessive force during an arrest, investigatory stop or other seizure is analysed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with hindsight.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

What does it take to get a judgment against me set aside?

GTE Automatic Elec. v. ARC Industries · 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976)

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a motion for relief from judgment must show a meritorious defence or claim to present if relief is granted, entitlement to relief under one of the grounds the rule states, and a motion made within a reasonable time, which for the first three grounds is also not more than one year after the judgment. The test is conjunctive, and the defence has to be alleged rather than proved.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Do I have to give my name to an officer?

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District · 542 U.S. 177 (2004)

The Court held that a state law requiring a person lawfully detained on reasonable suspicion to state their name does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and on the facts of that case did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination.

Since Whether any such duty exists is a question of each state's own statute. What Ohio requires is in the section this case is cited from.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can a no contest plea be used against me later?

Hollingsworth v. Timmerman-Cooper · 133 Ohio St.3d 253, 2012-Ohio-3907

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither the criminal rule nor the evidence rule preventing use of a no contest plea stops the state from using that plea in a later proceeding where the defendant is collaterally attacking the conviction the plea produced. The protection runs against the world and not against the person's own attack on the judgment.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

What if the person who let them in had no right to?

Illinois v. Rodriguez · 497 U.S. 177 (1990)

The Court held that a warrantless entry is valid where officers reasonably believed, at the time of entry, that the person consenting had authority over the premises, even if that belief turned out to be mistaken.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Does a child's age matter to whether they were in custody?

J.D.B. v. North Carolina · 564 U.S. 261 (2011)

The Court held that a child's age is a relevant factor in the Miranda custody analysis where it was known to the officer or objectively apparent, reasoning that a reasonable child may feel unable to leave in circumstances an adult would not.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can refusing the breath test be used against me at trial?

Maumee v. Anistik · 69 Ohio St.3d 339 (1994)

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a refusal to submit to a chemical test may be considered by the jury. Refusing does not keep the fact of the refusal out of the trial.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can they seize something they felt during a pat down?

Minnesota v. Dickerson · 508 U.S. 366 (1993)

The Court held that an officer conducting a lawful pat down for weapons may seize an item whose identity as contraband is immediately apparent from the touch, and that manipulating an object to work out what it is exceeds the scope of a weapons frisk.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Do I have any protection as an overnight guest?

Minnesota v. Olson · 495 U.S. 91 (1990)

The Court held that an overnight guest in another person's home has a reasonable expectation of privacy there, and may challenge a warrantless entry.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can they draw my blood without a warrant because alcohol burns off?

Missouri v. McNeely · 569 U.S. 141 (2013)

The Court held that the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not by itself create a per se exigency justifying a warrantless blood draw in every drunk driving case, and that exigency is decided on the totality of the circumstances, case by case.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

What process do I get before parole is revoked?

Morrissey v. Brewer · 408 U.S. 471 (1972)

The Court held that revocation of parole requires an informal hearing carrying due process protections: written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence, an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses, a neutral hearing body, and a written statement of the reasons for revocation.

Since Gagnon v. Scarpelli applied the same requirements to probation revocation.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can a school search my kid's bag?

New Jersey v. T.L.O. · 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

The Court held that a search of a student by school officials need not be supported by a warrant or probable cause. It held that such a search must be justified at its inception by reasonable grounds for suspecting a violation of law or school rules, and reasonable in scope in light of the age of the student and the nature of the infraction.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can I be arrested for loitering or looking suspicious?

Papachristou v. Jacksonville · 405 U.S. 156 (1972)

A vagrancy ordinance criminalising conduct described in terms such as loitering and wandering was void for vagueness. It failed to give ordinary people notice of what was forbidden and permitted arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Why do officers sometimes win even where a right was violated?

Pearson v. Callahan · 555 U.S. 223 (2009)

The Court held that courts deciding qualified immunity may address either question first: whether a constitutional right was violated, or whether that right was clearly established at the time. It made the two step sequence discretionary rather than mandatory.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Is the clause stopping me working for a competitor enforceable?

Raimonde v. Van Vlerah · 42 Ohio St.2d 21 (1975)

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a covenant restraining a former employee from competing is reasonable where it is no greater than required to protect the employer, imposes no undue hardship on the employee, and is not injurious to the public. It also held that a court may modify or amend such an agreement to reach a reasonable result rather than being limited to striking a divisible provision.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Does the disability law require accommodation during an arrest?

Roell v. Hamilton County · 870 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2017)

The Sixth Circuit declined to decide whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to an arrest, assuming for the sake of argument that it might and resolving the case on other grounds. The question remains open in the circuit Ohio sits in.

Since The Supreme Court took the same question in San Francisco v. Sheehan and dismissed that part of the case as improvidently granted, so it is unresolved above the circuit as well.

Sixth CircuitBinds the federal courts Ohio sits in, not Ohio state courts.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

How is force judged when someone is in a mental health crisis?

San Francisco v. Sheehan · 575 U.S. 600 (2015)

The Court granted qualified immunity to officers who entered the room of a woman in a mental health crisis a second time and used force, holding that no precedent clearly established at the time told them their conduct was unlawful. It did not decide whether the Americans with Disabilities Act requires accommodation during an armed confrontation.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can they go through my car after towing it?

South Dakota v. Opperman · 428 U.S. 364 (1976)

The Court held that a routine inventory of the contents of a lawfully impounded vehicle, conducted under standard police procedures and not as a pretext for an investigative search, is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

How far can a pat down go before it becomes a search?

State v. Evans · 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993)

The Supreme Court of Ohio described the purpose of a protective pat down as letting an officer pursue an investigation without fear of violence rather than as a means of discovering evidence. It held that the search stops as to an object once touch has shown that object is not a weapon, and that a protective search may not be expanded into a general search for evidence.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can refusing the test be its own charge if I have a prior?

State v. Hoover · 123 Ohio St.3d 418, 2009-Ohio-4993

The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the provision making a refusal to submit to a chemical test, by a person with a prior OVI conviction, carry its own penalty. Refusal in that circumstance is treated as an element of an offence rather than only as evidence.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

When does a day in jail count as three against the speedy trial clock?

State v. MacDonald · 48 Ohio St.2d 66 (1976)

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the provision counting each day in jail as three applies only to a person held in jail in lieu of bail solely on the pending charge. A hold on another matter sitting underneath the case takes the triple count away.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Is the smell of marijuana enough on its own to search my car?

State v. Moore · 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 2000-Ohio-10

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the smell of burnt marijuana, alone, detected by a person qualified to recognise the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to search a motor vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Alone meant that no further fact was required.

Since Whether this survived adult use legalisation is unsettled. Ohio appellate districts have split on it and the Supreme Court of Ohio has taken the question, so the answer currently depends on which district a case sits in. The Odor Question section carries the state of it.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can they stop me for touching the white line at the edge of the road?

State v. Turner · 163 Ohio St.3d 421, 2020-Ohio-6773

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the single solid white longitudinal line at the right hand edge of the roadway does not prohibit driving on or touching it. A driver whose tyres touched but did not cross that line had not committed a marked lanes violation, so an officer who observed only that lacked the reasonable and articulable suspicion a stop requires.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

When can an officer use deadly force on someone fleeing?

Tennessee v. Garner · 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

The Court held that deadly force may not be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Can a court order visitation over a fit parent's objection?

Troxel v. Granville · 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

A fit parent's decision about who may visit their child is entitled to special weight. A statute permitting a court to award visitation to any person whenever it serves the child's best interests, applied without deference to the parent's determination, infringes the parent's due process interest in the care and custody of their child.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Do they have to knock before coming in with a warrant?

Wilson v. Arkansas · 514 U.S. 927 (1995)

Whether officers knocked and announced their presence before entering is part of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that the common law knock and announce principle forms part of that analysis rather than being a rigid rule without exceptions.

U.S. Supreme CourtBinds every court in the country.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→

Do they have to be convicted before I can sue over a cut down tree?

Wooten v. Knisley · 79 Ohio St.3d 282 (1997)

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite to civil liability for treble damages under the section on reckless destruction of vegetation. The civil claim does not wait on a criminal case and does not require one to have happened.

Supreme Court of OhioBinds every Ohio court.

Summary written from the holding as established and reported, not from the text of the decision.

Read the decision→