State v. Rigel

Citations

• 2017 Ohio 7640
• 97 N.E.3d 825

Syllabus

The trial court did not err by overruling Appellant's motions to suppress. The warrantless use of a pole camera did not violate the Fourth Amendment, because the camera did not impinge on any reasonable expectations of privacy. The camera had the same view of the property as a passerby. The GPS tracking device warrant did not preclude extensions of time to use the device. Each of the other challenged warrants is supported by an affidavit that provides a substantial basis for finding probable cause. Judgment affirmed.