Legal Opinion
State v. Williams
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 12, 1978No. 77-1035PublishedCited by 78 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, J.
It is now well established that under the “plain view” doctrine, police officers may seize evidence,, instrumentalities or fruits of a crime without the necessity of having first obtained a search warrant specifically naming such items. Ker v. California (1963), 374 U. S. 23; Harris v. United States (1968), 390 U. S. 234. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether Detective Tell’s seizure of the Oldsmobile body parts can be justified under this exception to the warrant requirement.
In the course of analyzing the plain view doctrine in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U. S. 443,…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Harris v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Stanley v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by78 opinions
- State v. SageOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. ChattonOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. BennerOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. MooreWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. HalczyszakOhio Supreme Court · 1986
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.