Ohio

Officer Who Personally Observes Traffic Violation Has Probable Cause for Stop Outside His Jurisdiction

By Cleveland Law Library

In State v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-316, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a police officer's extraterritorial stop for a traffic infraction does not violate the Fourth Amendment, thereby invoking the exclusionary rule.  The court relied upon its opinion in State v. Weideman (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 501 and the recent United States Supreme Court case, Virginia v. Moore (2008), ____ U.S. _____, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 170 L.Ed.2d 559, to support its holding.  An extraterritorial stop by a law-enforcement officer is not per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the officer personally observes the traffic violation upon which the stop is made.  Although the stop may be unlawful under R.C. 2935.03, this does not rise to a constitutional violation, thereby resulting in a suppression of evidence. The Supreme Court of Ohio pointed out that the Ohio Legislature did not provide a remedy for a violation of R.C. 2935.03 and stated it is not the court's place to rectify a possible legislative oversight by applying the exclusionary rule for a violation.

Full post as published by Cleveland Law Library Weblog on February 05, 2009 (boomark / email).