History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Friedman
957 N.E.2d 815
Ohio Ct. App.
2011
Read the full case

Background

  • The state of Ohio appeals a suppression order after Friedman’s vehicle was searched without a warrant following a canine alert on a parked vehicle on campus (Wooster satellite campus).
  • A drug-sniffing dog alerted to Friedman’s locked car; police attempted to contact Friedman for about 20–30 minutes but were unsuccessful.
  • Police used a lockout device to gain access to Friedman’s locked vehicle and removed several items.
  • Friedman was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia in 2010; she moved to suppress the vehicle search, which the trial court granted.
  • The trial court distinguished this situation from vehicle searches during traffic stops and concluded there was no justification for warrantless entry.
  • The state appeals, arguing the automobile exception with probable cause derived from the canine sniff validly permitted the warrantless search.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether a canine alert establishing probable cause justifies warrantless vehicle search Friedman: warrant required; no exception applies Friedman: automobile exception applies; no warrant needed Search upheld; probable cause from canine sniff valid under automobile exception

Key Cases Cited

  • California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (vehicle privacy reduced; automobile exception applies with probable cause)
  • Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (automobile exception and lack of separate exigency)
  • United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (no warrant required if probable cause exists)
  • State v. Lang, 117 Ohio App.3d 29 (Ohio App. 1996) (probable cause to believe vehicle contains evidence suffices for intrusion)
  • State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio Supreme Court 2000) (automobile exception and canine sniff permissibility)
  • State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 585 (Ohio App. 1995) (drug-dog sniff can supply probable cause for search)
  • State v. White, 2008-Ohio-657 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (drug-dog sniff leading to vehicle search in applicable contexts)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Friedman
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jun 20, 2011
Citation: 957 N.E.2d 815
Docket Number: 10CA0025
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.