State v. Robinette
Ohio Supreme Court
1Dissent
Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.,
dissenting. I am disturbed by the majority’s requirement that police officers must now recite certain words before a consensual interrogation may begin. This “bright-line” test appears unique to Ohio and vastly undercuts our law enforcement’s ability to ferret out crime. Furthermore, the majority’s test is contrary to well-established state and federal constitutional law.
*656The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that not every encounter between a police officer and citizen is a seizure. Florida v. Bostick (1991), 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 2386, 115…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Florida v. BostickSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Florida v. JimenoSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- State v. ChattonOhio Supreme Court · 1984
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.