State v. Dunn

92 Citing cases

  1. State v. Moiduddin

    2019 Ohio 3544 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a law-enforcement officer with objectively reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need for his or her assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury to effect a community-caretaking/emergency-aid stop. 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, ¶ 26, 964 N.E.2d 1037. In concluding that the community caretaking exception did not supply a valid basis for Trooper Byers's stop of Moiduddin's vehicle, the trial court found that the "totality of the circumstances * * * d[id] not suggest that there was an immediate need for assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury."

  2. State v. Modreski

    2024 Ohio 1550 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)

    The court has also characterized situations befitting the emergency-aid exception as placing "life or limb * * * in jeopardy." State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 21. We therefore understand the emergency-aid exception to excuse the warrant requirement in circumstances where the time it takes to obtain a warrant may place a person's life in danger.

  3. State v. Weemhoff

    2022 Ohio 4263 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)

    State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, syllabus.

  4. State v. Wade

    2019 Ohio 4565 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)

    Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U.S. at 403, 405-406, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006), quoting Mincey v. Arizona , 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978). Accord , State v. Dunn , 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, syllabus. {¶22} In Ohio, the Supreme Court has held,

  5. State v. Stengel

    2018 Ohio 2286 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

    Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. at 403, 405-406, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006), quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978). Accord, State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, syllabus. {¶33} In Ohio, the Supreme Court has held,

  6. State v. Linder

    66 N.E.3d 289 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)

    {¶ 8} At the suppression hearing, the State argued that the warrantless entry of Mr. Linder's house fell within the exigent circumstances exception, other times known as the community-caretaking exception. State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 15. In Dunn, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that the exception exists because "police officers are duty-bound to provide emergency services to those who are in danger of physical harm[.

  7. State v. Dawley

    2016 Ohio 2904 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    The community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a law-enforcement officer with objectively reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need for his or her assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury to effect a community-caretaking/emergency-aid stop. State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, syllabus. In Dunn, the Ohio Supreme Court cited ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 1–2.2 for the proposition that "police officers are duty-bound to provide emergency services to those who are in danger of physical harm."

  8. City of Strongsville v. Rodriguez

    2016 Ohio 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)

    “ ‘The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’ ” [State v.] Dunn [, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037], ¶ 18, quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 234 (D.C.Cir.1963) (the community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception allows a law-enforcement officer to act without a warrant when the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need for the officer's assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury); [State v. ]Hyde [, 26 Ohio App.2d 32, 33, 268 N.E.2d 820 (9th Dist.1971) (the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement is satisfied by a showing the police officers had reasonable grounds to believe that some kind of emergency existed). “The ultimate standard set forth in the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.”

  9. State v. Wagner

    2014 Ohio 5548 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)

    {¶14} Warrantless searches are presumptively unconstitutional, but several exceptions to the warrant requirement have been delineated by the courts, including the one pertinent to this case, the "community-caretaking exception," which courts sometimes refer to as the "emergency-aid exception" or "exigent-circumstance exception." State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, ¶ 15. The exception is based on a recognition that

  10. State v. Barzacchini

    2014 Ohio 3467 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 3 times
    Permitting a community caretaking stop where “a law enforcement officer [has] objectively reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need for his or her assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury”

    The community-caretaking/emergency-aid exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement allows a law-enforcement officer with objectively reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need for his or her assistance to protect life or prevent serious injury to effect a community-caretaking/emergency-aid stop. State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, 964 N.E.2d 1037, syllabus. Test as Applied to this Case