State v. Tanner
Citations
- 2025 Ohio 2087
Syllabus
The trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion to suppress. The facts known to the officer when he called for the drug-sniffing canine during the traffic stop were insufficient to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify prolonging the stop, and the officer suspended his efforts to resolve the issue that led to the original stop until after the canine alerted. Judgment reversed and remanded.
Judges: Huffman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court· 1968-06-10· cited 37,942×
- United States v. CortezSupreme Court· 1981-01-21· cited 5,975×
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court· 1984-07-02· cited 4,856×
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court· 1967-06-05· cited 3,591×
- United States v. PlaceSupreme Court· 1983-06-20· cited 3,374×
- City of Dayton v. EricksonOhio Supreme Court· 1996-07-03· cited 850×
- City of Xenia v. WallaceOhio Supreme Court· 1988-06-22· cited 509×
- City of Maumee v. WeisnerOhio Supreme Court· 1999-12-22· cited 485×
- State v. ChattonOhio Supreme Court· 1984-05-29· cited 306×
- State v. ClayOhio Supreme Court· 1973-06-20· cited 164×
- State v. PressleyOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-09-07· cited 17×
- State v. ByrdOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-12-22· cited 10×
- State v. GreenOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-06-30· cited 9×
- State v. RhinesOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-07-22· cited 7×
- State v. ThomasOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-06-30· cited 5×
- State v. KincaidOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-07-05· cited 5×
- State v. NeyhardOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-03-31· 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.