State v. Stewart
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 1189
Syllabus
Fourth Amendment; warrantless entry; consent; search warrant; fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine; exclusionary rule. Judgment affirmed. The denial of the suppression motion was not in error. Appellant consented to officers' initial entry into his home to retrieve clothing for appellant to wear. The evidence was in plain view, and that observation can be used as the basis for a subsequent search warrant.
Judges: Boyle
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1967-12-18· cited 13,304×
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1963-01-14· cited 12,871×
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court· 1973-05-29· cited 11,783×
- Bumper v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1968-06-03· cited 3,107×
- State v. FanningOhio Supreme Court· 1982-07-14· cited 2,064×
- State v. MillsOhio Supreme Court· 1992-01-08· cited 1,624×
- Segura v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1984-07-05· cited 1,569×
- State v. WaddyOhio Supreme Court· 1992-04-15· cited 801×
- State v. PoseyOhio Supreme Court· 1988-12-30· cited 168×
- State v. Belton (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-04-20· cited 156×
- State v. HalczyszakOhio Supreme Court· 1986-08-13· cited 137×
- State v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court· 1998-09-02· cited 124×
- State v. BookerOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-01-19· cited 4×
- Westlake v. DudasOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-01-09· cited 3×
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.