Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

June 21, 2006

The police receive an anonymous tip that a black male wearing black clothing and walking through a parking lot has a gun. The police arrive within thirty seconds, see a black male wearing black clothing walking through the parking lot. He doesn't respond when the officers tell him to stop and take his hands out of his pockets, so they stop and frisk him, finding an Altoids tin containing PCP. (Talk about "curiously strong.") Good search or bad?

Bad, says the court in State v. Kittrell, reiterating that in order for an anonymous tip to furnish the basis for a stop, it "must provide more than a mere description of the person's appearance and location"; the police have to be able to corroborate some detail of the informant's tip which indicates that criminal activity is afoot before making the stop.  This is in accord with previous cases, such as this one, which contains a particularly nice quote at the end from Judge Timothy McMonagle extolling the values of the 4th Amendment, and this one

The lodestar, as we say in the law biz, on this subject remains the US Supreme Court case in Florida v. J.L., where the police received an anonymous tip that there was a young black male in a plaid shirt with a gun at a bus stop, the police arrived at the scene and observed a young black male in a plaid shirt at a bus stop, and a subsequent search revealed he had a gun.  The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the search.

I had a case last year which was almost on all fours, as we also say in the law biz, with J.L.  I won't mention the judge, but he would be universally regarded by defense attorneys as one of the fairest and most solicitous of constitutional rights.  I cross-examined the cop and got him, rather easily, to acknowledge that he hadn't seen anything other than what the anonymous tip had told him:  a black male at a certain place wearing certain clothing.  I gave the judge a copy of J.L., and he agreed that the search was bad.  As he walked off the bench, he mentioned that it was the first time in twelve years that he'd granted a motion to suppress.

And all I could think was that if this judge had granted a single motion to suppress in twelve years, the 4th Amendment was in a lot worse shape than I thought.

Search

Recent Entries

  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions
  • August 7, 2017
    Two on allied offenses
    A look at the 8th District's latest decisions on allied offenses
  • August 3, 2017
    Thursday Ruminations
    Computerized sentencing, lawyer ads, and songs from the past
  • August 1, 2017
    8th District Roundup
    One thing that doing this blog has taught me is how much the law changes. The US Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington have dramatically altered the right to jury trial and confrontation, respectively. The...
  • July 28, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    The better part of discretion
  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture