Legal Opinion

State v. Waldbillig

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1964No. 38833PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaut, C. J.

Because the automobile was searched without a warrant and was not searched at the time that defendant and its other occupants had been arrested and before they had been taken to the police station, the Supreme Court of the United States requires a state court to suppress as evidence all the items found as a result of that search. See Preston v. United States (1964), 376 U. S., 364, 11 L. Ed. (2d), 777, 84 S. Ct., 881; Stoner v. California (1964), 376 U. S., 483, 11 L. Ed. (2d), 856, 84 S. Ct., 889. Cf. Ker v. California (1963), 374 U. S., 23, 10 L. Ed. (2d), 726, 83 S. Ct., 1623.

However, it…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ker v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Preston v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Fahy v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Stoner v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1964
  2. State v. WhitmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. State v. SpawOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. City of Warrensville Hts. v. TothOhio Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. State v. StottsOhio Court of Appeals · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API