Legal Opinion

State v. Halczyszak

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 13, 1986No. 85-538Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCelebrezze, C.J.

I concur in the majority’s determination that the Oldsmobile (specified in the warrant), its “clone” car, and certain tools (which were in close proximity to or adjacent to these two cars) were lawfully seized and admissible as evidence. I also agree with that portion of today’s decision which holds the officers’ seizure of patently innocent automobile parts and tools discovered elsewhere on the premises was not justified under the plain view doctrine and that these items could be suppressed as evidence. For the reasons which follow, however, I dissent from the remainder of the holding and I…

Also in this document: Judgment of the Court.

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. Texas v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Stanley v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969

26 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