Skip to main content

State v. Gary

Citations

  • 2018 Ohio 3696

Syllabus

The trial court did not erroneously apply the plain view doctrine when overruling Appellant's motion to suppress. The detective who discovered Appellant's drugs in plain view was lawfully located in an area from which he could observe the drugs because he had a legitimate purpose for entering the area in question and the area in question was substantially open to public view and part of a premises that had a reduced expectation of privacy. Judgment affirmed. (Froelich, J., concurring.)

Judges: Welbaum

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.