Legal Opinion

State v. Hakim

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County

Decided March 15, 2018No. 105679PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MARY J. BOYLE, J.:

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, state of Ohio, appeals from a judgment granting defendant-appellee, Abdul Hakim's (a.k.a. Abdul Asmar and Darryl Brown) ("Hakim") motion to suppress drugs and criminal tools found during the execution of a search warrant upon a residence.2 Specifically, the *160state argues that the trial court erred because the search and seizure of items beyond those articulated in the search warrant was justified under the plain view or plain smell doctrines outlined in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Upon review of the record and relevant law, we affirm the trial…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Horton v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. State v. BurnsideOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  4. State v. FanningOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. State v. MillsOhio Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. AndrewsOhio Court of Appeals · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API