State v. Haynes
Ohio Court of Appeals
1DissentFroelich, J.
{¶ 21} I agree with the majority that the officers lawfully found the gun in Tims's vehicle and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the weapon. However, I disagree that Haynes's detention was not extended beyond the time required to complete the stop of Tims. I would hold that Haynes's statements were in response to comments by the police that would reasonably elicit an incriminating response while he was unlawfully detained and that those statements should have been suppressed.
{¶ 22} The report of an active warrant provided reasonable suspicion to justify…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Rodriguez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Maryland v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- State v. RobinetteOhio Supreme Court · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.