Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State v. Dalpiaz
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided December 31, 2002No. Case No. 2001-P-0044Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDiane V. Grendell, Judge
{¶ 51} I concur with the majority’s denial of appellant’s first assignment of error. However, I respectfully dissent from the remainder of the majority’s opinion for the reasons stated below.
{¶ 52} With respect to appellant’s second assignment of error, the majority characterizes the search warrants in this case as a “laundry list approach” and finds them “an unacceptable infringement upon an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights.” I disagree. As noted in my dissenting opinion in State v. Young (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 245, 765 N.E.2d 938, a sharpshooter test for the content of a search warrant…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Delaware v. ProuseSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Alabama v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- State v. GeorgeOhio Supreme Court · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.