State v. Gause

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 2168

Syllabus

The warrantless pinging of appellant's cellphone was permissible because exigent circumstances existed, namely that appellant had shot the victim in front of two witnesses and fled the scene. Because exigent circumstances existed justifying the warrantless \ping\ of appellant's cellphone, trial counsel's decision not to file a motion to suppress the cellphone site location information was not unreasonable and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant's conviction for murder was not against the manifest of the evidence the evidence at trial established that appellant was the individual who fired the gun used to kill the victim. Judgment affirmed.