Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

April 28, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Search and Seizure - Evidence - Criminal Rule 11
- Procedure - Rules
- Sentencing
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinions.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

State v. Lopez (April 27, 2006) (2006-ohio-2091)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2091.pdf
-  An officer's observation of a traffic violation or erratic driving
justifies an investigative stop:  evidence showing that the
defendant's van swerved far to the left, almost driving off the
berm and into the grass median, and then overcompensated to the right to
the point where he almost hit a truck gave police officers a reasonable,
articulable suspicion of criminal activity, and the stop of the
defendant's van did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The
overwhelming smell of carpet cleaner coming from the defendant's van,
its driving in tandem with another car that committed traffic violations
once police showed an interest in the van, and the defendant's
evasiveness were specific, articulable facts that justified the
defendant's continued detention. An exterior sniff by a drug-detecting
dog is not a search within the meaning of the United States or Ohio
constitution, and police need not have a reasonable suspicion of
drug-related activity before subjecting an otherwise lawfully detained
vehicle to a drug sniff:  because the defendant's vehicle was lawfully
detained, a dog's sniff of his vehicle did not violate his Fourth
Amendment rights. Once a properly trained dog indicates the odor of
drugs in a lawfully detained vehicle, police have probable cause to
search the vehicle:  not only a dog's alert to drugs in the
defendant's rented van, but also the tandem driving of the
defendant's van and another car, the odor of carpet freshener, and the
defendant's nervousness and evasiveness when questioned by police
provided probable cause to search the van, and the search was justified
under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The state can
establish the reliability of a drug-detecting dog by presenting evidence
of the dog's training and certification, which can be testimonial or
documentary, once the state establishes reliability, the defendant can
attack the dog's "credibility" by evidence relating to training
procedures, certification standards, and real-world reliability.
Competent, credible evidence supported the trial court's finding that
the drug-detecting dog was reliable. The record showed that the
defendant's no-contest plea was knowingly and voluntarily made and
that his "due process" issues related to the trial court's
decision overruling his motion to suppress or to matters that were
irrelevant to the plea; therefore, the trial court did not err in
accepting the plea. Judgment AFFIRMED.

Burdge v. On Guard Security Services, Inc., et al. (April 27, 2006)
(2006-ohio-2092)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2092.pdf
-  The trial court erred by entering judgment in favor of the
defendants after denying plaintiff's Civ.R. 55(A) motion for a default
judgment, when the defendants had failed to answer the allegations in
the complaint:  Under Civ.R. 8(D), allegations that are not denied are
deemed admitted, and thus true, and when all allegations are admitted,
the defendant in essence has admitted to liability.  Judgment REVERSED
and cause REMANDED.

State v. Howard (April 27, 2006) (2006-ohio-2093)
-  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2006/2006-ohio-2093.pdf
-  When a defendant has been sentenced under statutory provisions held
unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Foster, __ Ohio
St.3d __, 2006-OHIO-856, __N.E.2d __, the appropriate remedy on appeal
is to vacate the sentence and to remand the case to the trial court for
resentencing. Sentence VACATED in part and cause REMANDED.

 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

No Opinions.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

No Opinions.
 

Daily Case Updates