Legal Opinion
State v. Muldrow
Hamilton County Municipal Court
Decided November 23, 1983No. Nos. 83-CRB-15471 and -21491PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPainter, J.
These two cases were consolidated for purpose of decision, the facts being stipulated in each. The stipulated facts are as follows:
Both defendants, Willie Muldrow and Thomas Strickley, while in police custody on other charges, refused to be fingerprinted, such procedure being part of the ordinary identification process by the Cincinnati Police. It was further stipulated that the police officers who were attempting to fingerprint the defendants were public officials attempting to perform an authorized act within the scope of their official capacity.
The defendants were charged with obstructing…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- City of Dayton v. RogersOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- State v. StephensOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
- City of Columbus v. MichelOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
- State v. JelliffeHamilton County Municipal Court · 1982
3Cited by7 opinions
- City of Hamilton v. HammOhio Court of Appeals · 1986
- City of Garfield Heights v. SimpsonOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- City of Middletown v. HollonOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
- State v. FlorenceOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Lyons v. CITY OF XENIA. OHDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.