Law Enforcement Bulletin

Cell phones: A ‘gold mine’ for criminal investigations

It’s easy to understand why cell phones are commonly used in drug-related offenses. But with technology advancing so quickly, criminals are able to use smart phones to commit more complex crimes such as elaborate money laundering and human trafficking schemes. And, of course, they’re the primary tool used in sexting and cyber stalking.

6/14/2012

Training offers insight into active shooter situations

A new Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy (OPOTA) course is designed to give law enforcement, prosecutors, dispatchers, and school teachers and administrators insight into the thoughts and actions of active school shooters before they commit their crimes. OPOTA will offer the Profile of an Active Shooter course free of charge throughout the state in October and November.

6/14/2012

United States v. Shrader — Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia), April 4, 2012

Question: Can a co-tenant give consent to search a shared home even though the suspect has previously refused consent?

Quick answer: Yes. If the suspect is not physically present to dispute the consent, a co-tenant may subsequently consent to a search of the premises.

6/14/2012

United States v. Burgard — Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin), April 2, 2012

Question: Did police violate the Fourth Amendment when they waited six days before getting a warrant to search a suspect’s lawfully seized cell phone?

Quick answer: No, but only because there were legitimate reasons for the delay.

6/14/2012

Phillips v. Community Insurance Corp. — Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin), April 27, 2012

Question: Did officers use excessive force when they fired an SL6 riot gun four times at a non-resisting, intoxicated suspect?

Quick answer: Yes, so they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

6/14/2012

United States v. Ramirez — Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota), April 26, 2012

Question: Is an officer’s warrantless entry into a hotel room justified by exigent circumstances if he believes that evidence will be destroyed?

Quick answer: No, not without actual proof that an exigency exists.

6/14/2012

State v. Miller — Fourth District Court of Appeals (Adams, Athens, Gallia, Highland, Hocking, Jackson, Lawrence, Meigs, Pickaway, Pike, Ross, Scioto, Vinton, and Washington counties), April 17, 2012

Question: (1) Must a suspect’s consent to a search be explicit? (2) Must a peace officer inform a suspect that he has a right to refuse consent?

Quick answer: (1) No. A suspect’s consent may be implied by his conduct. (2) No. An individual doesn’t need to be aware of his right to refuse consent to a search.

6/14/2012

State v. Burnap — Fifth District Court of Appeals (Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark, and Tuscarawas counties)

Question: Can a peace officer solely rely on a citizen informant’s tip as the reasonable suspicion to stop a possible drunk driver?

Quick answer: No, not when the citizen informant doesn’t specifically describe what he has observed from the “drunk” driver.

6/14/2012

State v. Clark — Eighth District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County), May 10, 2012

Question: Is consent to search voluntarily given when it’s in the presence of numerous peace officers during a “knock and talk”?

Quick answer: Probably not.

6/14/2012

State v. Jackson — Eleventh District Court of Appeals (Ashtabula, Geauga, Lake, Portage, and Trumbull counties), May 14, 2012

Question: (1) May peace officers order a driver to get out of a lawfully detained vehicle without additional reasonable suspicion or probable cause? (2) Does on-scene investigative questioning trigger a suspect’s Fifth Amendment Miranda rights?

Quick answer: (1) Yes. (2) No.

6/14/2012

Printable PDFs

Law Enforcement Bulletin