State v. Weideman

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Weideman

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

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 14, 2001·No. 00-1869·Published·Cited by 10 cases

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] October 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] October 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.

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

Pincite

742 N.E.2d 144 (State v. Weideman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related