Legal Opinion

State v. Hathman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 1992No. 91-1820PublishedCited by 68 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The court of appeals determined that the opening of the closed containers (white plastic bag and its contents) found during the inventory search of appellee’s automobile violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and, therefore, the evidence seized during the inventory search could not be used by the state to prove the charges against appellee. We are persuaded by the well-reasoned opinion of the court of appeals and, for the reasons that follow, we affirm.

An inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle is a well-defined exception to the warrant…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. South Dakota v. OppermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. United States v. Jose Alvaro GalloCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
  3. United States v. Roger Glen Kornegay, A/K/A Richard SanchezCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
  4. United States v. John Westley WilsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
  5. State v. BoninSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1991

3Cited by68 opinions

  1. State v. OtteOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. PeaglerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Fair v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State v. MesaOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. OtteOhio Supreme Court · 1996

63 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