City of Fairborn v. Mattachione

650 N.E.2d 426, 72 Ohio St. 3d 345
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 28, 1995·No. No. 94-662·Published·Cited by 22 cases

Opinions

The cause is before this court upon the certification of the court of appeals that its judgment conflicted with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in Columbus v. Reid (1986), 32 Ohio App.3d 7, 513 N.E.2d 351, upon the following question:

[346]*346“[Wjhether or not the exclusionary rule is applicable as a sanction for violation of R.C. 2935.20.”

This court answers the certified question in the negative. The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to it for further proceedings.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Cook, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., Wright and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of Fairborn v. Mattachione, 650 N.E.2d 426, 72 Ohio St. 3d 345 (Ohio 1995).

650 N.E.2d 426 (City of Fairborn v. Mattachione) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Stover
2017 Ohio 9097 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)
Motor Vehicle Administration v. Deering
92 A.3d 495 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2014)
Columbus v. Dixon, 07ap-536 (4-29-2008)
2008 Ohio 2018 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
City of Twinsburg v. Lacerva, 23849 (2-13-2008)
2008 Ohio 550 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
In Re V.S., Unpublished Decision (11-30-2005)
2005 Ohio 6324 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
State v. Gunther, Unpublished Decision (7-5-2005)
2005 Ohio 3492 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
State v. Perez, Unpublished Decision (3-25-2005)
2005 Ohio 1326 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)
State v. Lloyd
709 N.E.2d 913 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1998)
State v. Layton
675 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1996)
State v. Griffith
1996 Ohio 256 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
Fairborn v. Mattachione
1995 Ohio 207 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1995)