State v. Weideman

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Weideman

742 N.E.2d 144, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1446, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 410

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 14, 2001

Docket00-1869

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 742 N.E.2d 144 (State v. Weideman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Weideman, 742 N.E.2d 144, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1446, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 410 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Portage App. No. 98-P-0109. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed [1447]*1447October 10, 2000, at page 2:

“Whether a stop and detention of a motorist by a police officer, who is beyond his or her jurisdictional limits, for an offense observed and committed outside the officer’s jurisdiction automatically constitutes a per se unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, thereby triggering the mandatory application of the exclusionary rule to suppress all evidence flowing from the stop.”

Cause consolidated with 00-2126, State v. Weideman, Portage App. No. 98-P-0109.

The conflict cases are State v. Filler (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 731, 667 N.E.2d 54; State v. Tennison (Apr. 14, 1989), Wood App. No. WD-88-41, unreported, 1989 WL 35534; State v. Brown (Apr. 16, 1999), Pickaway App. No. 98CA27, unreported, 1999 WL 259649; and State v. Hammons (Aug. 28, 1998), Montgomery App. No. 16931, unreported, 1998 WL 543363.

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

Portage App. No. 98-P-0109. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed [1447]*1447October 10, 2000, at page 2:

“Whether a stop and detention of a motorist by a police officer, who is beyond his or her jurisdictional limits, for an offense observed and committed outside the officer’s jurisdiction automatically constitutes a per se unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, thereby triggering the mandatory application of the exclusionary rule to suppress all evidence flowing from the stop.”

Cause consolidated with 00-2126, State v. Weideman, Portage App. No. 98-P-0109.

The conflict cases are State v. Filler (1995), 106 Ohio App.3d 731, 667 N.E.2d 54; State v. Tennison (Apr. 14, 1989), Wood App. No. WD-88-41, unreported, 1989 WL 35534; State v. Brown (Apr. 16, 1999), Pickaway App. No. 98CA27, unreported, 1999 WL 259649; and State v. Hammons (Aug. 28, 1998), Montgomery App. No. 16931, unreported, 1998 WL 543363.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 N.E.2d 144, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1446, 2001 Ohio LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weideman-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack