State v. Geraldo
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
The question presented in the instant appeal is whether the federal constitution or state law requires the suppression of evidence obtained by the warrantless recording of a telephone conversation between a consenting police informant and a non-consenting defendant.
I
Appellant seeks to avoid the rule expressed in the plurality opinion of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. White (1971), 401 U. S. 745, and subsequently ratified by a majority of that court in United States v. Caceres (1979), 440 U. S. 741, by advancing a theory which posits that the scope of *122Fourth Amendment…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Oregon v. HassSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- United States v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Lopez v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- State v. RobinetteOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Autran v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1994
- People v. CollinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. GeraldoOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
- State v. GoetzMontana Supreme Court · 2008
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.