State v. Smith
Citations
- 2021 Ohio 2654
Syllabus
SEARCH & SEIZURE – STANDING: The trial court properly suppressed evidence seized during a search of a vehicle when the defendant established that he had permission to drive the vehicle, the titled owner did not give consent for the search, and the state failed to establish the police officer followed an official inventory policy when he conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle.
Judges: Zayas
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1967-12-18· cited 13,304×
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court· 1973-05-29· cited 11,783×
- Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court· 1979-01-15· cited 6,103×
- Bumper v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1968-06-03· cited 3,107×
- California v. AcevedoSupreme Court· 1991-06-03· cited 1,409×
- United States v. DraytonSupreme Court· 2002-06-17· cited 1,084×
- Byrd v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2018-05-14· cited 288×
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court· 1995-08-16· cited 250×
- State v. ColemanOhio Supreme Court· 1989-09-20· cited 203×
- United States v. Jorge Enrique ArangoTenth Circuit· 1990-08-28· cited 164×
- State v. Leak (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-01-20· cited 135×
- United States v. Ramon Rubio-RiveraTenth Circuit· 1990-10-26· cited 105×
- State v. HathmanOhio Supreme Court· 1992-12-14· cited 102×
- State v. BuzzardOhio Supreme Court· 2007-02-14· cited 50×
- State v. OjileOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-12-21· cited 28×
- United States v. Valdez HockerTenth Circuit· 2003-06-26· cited 20×
- State v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2013-11-04· cited 13×
- State v. ShowesOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-02-26· cited 7×
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.