Opinion · Ohio Supreme Court
In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases
In re Ohio Criminal Sent’g Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St. 3d 518 (Ohio 2006)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Ohio Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Ohio
- Date
- 2006-07-12
- Topic
- general
noting, in finding Miranda custody, that officer had seized car keys and told suspect he would be detained until officer decided to return the keys | noting, in finding Miranda custody, that officer had seized car keys and told suspect he would be detained until officer decided to return the keys | declining to adopt Patane's rationale and stating, "We believe that the overall administration of justice in Ohio requires a law-enforcement environment in which evidence is gathered in conjunction with Miranda, not in defiance of it." | "We agree with the Seibert plurality and dissent that the intent of the officer doing the questioning is not relevant in a Miranda analysis.” | odor of marijuana established probable cause to search passenger Pickaway App. No. 20CA4 9 compartment of vehicle but, standing alone, did not establish probable cause for warrantless search of trunk of vehicle
Citator
- Cited by
- 45 opinions
{¶ 1} The following dispositions of currently pending appeals are hereby entered based on our decision in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.I
{¶ 2} Discretionary appeals are accepted in the following cases, the judgments of the courts of appeals are reversed, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for resentencing. If propositions of law are noted, such reversals apply only to those portions of the judgments of the courts of appeals as are implicated by the applicable propositions of law:
{¶ 3} 2006-0411. State v. Hall, Cuyahoga App. No. 85861, 2006-Ohio-89, 2006 WL 60777. Also reversed and remanded on the authority of State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 846 N.E.2d 1, and State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824.
{¶ 4} 2006-0421. State v. Berry, Scioto App. No. 04CA2961, 2006-Ohio-244, 2006 WL 164919. Accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. I and II.
{¶ 5} 2006-0455. State v. Perry, Ross App. No. 05CA2837, 2006-Ohio-219, 2006 WL 158861. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. I.
{¶ 6} 2006-0534. State v. Batin, Stark App. No. 2005CA00066, 2006-Ohio-512, 2006 WL 281052.
{¶ 7} 2006-0541. State v. LaBoy, Cuyahoga App. No. 86255, 2006-Ohio-168, 2006 WL 134827.
II
{¶ 8} The discretionary appeal is accepted in the following case, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing: