Needless to say, I spent the two weeks in Maui eagerly anticipating the decisions I’d get to write about on my return.  Yeah, sure…  Besides reprimanding, suspending, or disbarring a sundry group of miscreant attorneys, the Ohio Supreme Court handed down only a couple of decisions of note.  In Peters v. Columbus Casting, it held that a decedent’s agreement with his employer to arbitrate disputes didn’t bind his beneficiaries in a wrongful death suit against the employer.  In State v. Lomax, it ruled that the “in open court” requirement for a jury waiver means that there has to be some on-record colloquy between the judge and the defendant.  I’ll have more on that later this week.  As for the court of appeals decisions…

The 1st District reaffirms its view that drug trafficking and drug possession are allied offenses of similar import.  Its earlier decision on that point is pending before the Ohio Supreme Court, and the case may provide the Court an opportunity to clarify the law in this area, the problems of which are detailed here.  The 6th District tosses a search, saying that being drunk doesn’t give the cops a reason to arrest you, you’ve got to be disorderly, too.  The 8th District rules that a specific waiver of speedy trial time, by either the defendant or his attorney, is required; counsel’s agreement to set the trial date beyond the time isn’t enough. The 11th District reverses the denial of a motion to suppress, holding that “modest weaving” within the driver’s lane didn’t warrant a stop. 

In civil cases, the 9th District reverses a plaintiff’s verdict in a negligent home construction case, holding that proof of cost of repairs isn’t sufficient; proof of diminution of value of the property is required.  The 1st District affirms a rare plaintiff’s victory in an RC 4123.90 suit for retaliatory discharge for filing a workers comp claim.  Good discussion in this 4th District case of considerations in determining whether sanctions are merited for a frivolous claim.  The 12th District holds that shallow water is an open and obvious hazard, affirming the grant of summary judgment against a plaintiff who’d suffered a spinal cord injury when diving off a dock. 

I can think of a better answer.  From the 2nd District’s decision in State v. Moss: 

After Officer Conley began the pat-down of the defendant and before she discovered the cocaine, she asked the defendant what was in her blouse. When Ross stated the bulge was “drugs,” the officers had probable cause to arrest Ross and remove the drugs from her blouse incident to her arrest.