Legal Opinion

State v. Williams

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 9, 1990No. 89-229PublishedCited by 101 opinions

1Per curiam

We are asked to determine whether the stop and frisk of appellee by Deputy Garst violated appellee’s right, as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. We answer such query in the negative, as Deputy Garst’s conduct was lawful under the dictates of Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, and its progeny.

Terry stands for the proposition that “a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Adams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by101 opinions

  1. State v. AndrewsOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. LozaOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State v. RetherfordOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. State v. EvansOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State v. VenhamOhio Court of Appeals · 1994

96 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API