Skip to main content
· 8/27/2021

State v. Stonitsch

Citations

  • 2021 Ohio 2953

Syllabus

SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE – EXCLUSIONARY RULE – STALENESS OF EVIDENCE – GOOD-FAITH EXCEPTION – AFFIDAVIT: Where the officer's affidavit consisted only of years-old stale information and present evidence of personal drug use, there was no probable cause to search the defendant's residence for evidence of drug trafficking, and the trial court erred in applying the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, because the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that no reasonable official could have believed in its existence. [But see DISSENT: A reasonable police officer would not find the affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to believe no probable cause existed therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied.]

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • courts in malicious prosecution actions do not \re-decide\ underlying action but only whether defendants had a reasonable belief in claim
  • attorney may have a reasonable belief in a claim even though legal validity of claim is uncertain
  • courts in malicious prosecution actions do not “re-decide” underlying action but only whether defendants had a reasonable belief in claim
  • attorney may have a reasonable belief in a claim even though legal validity of claim is uncertain

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bergeron

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.