State v. Whitfield
Citations
- 2020 Ohio 2929
Syllabus
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – REASONABLE SUSPICION – PAT-DOWN: Where defendant was a passenger in an automobile stopped by police for excessive window tinting, the trial court did not err in granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered after a pat-down, because the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous to permit the pat-down.
Judges: Crouse
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court· 1968-06-10· cited 37,942×
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1963-01-14· cited 12,871×
- Seasons Coal Co. v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court· 1984-04-18· cited 4,990×
- State v. BurnsideOhio Supreme Court· 2003-10-22· cited 2,261×
- Miller v. MillerOhio Supreme Court· 1988-06-01· cited 1,173×
- State v. EvansOhio Supreme Court· 1993-09-22· cited 502×
- State v. MooreOhio Supreme Court· 2000-09-20· cited 370×
- 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.