State v. Harding

15 Citing cases

  1. State v. Moralez

    44 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 6 times

    After having apparently struggled with this issue for 15 years, the Ohio courts have staked out, perhaps, the most extreme position. State v. Harding, 180 Ohio App. 3d 497, 504, 905 N.E.2d 1289 (2009), cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 2349 (2010) (After describing four appellate decisions arriving at various and conflicting resolutions, the court characterizes the question as one "not free from difficulty."). The Ohio courts have concluded that a person subject to an outstanding arrest warrant "ha[s] no reasonable expectation of privacy" and, as a result, "an otherwise unlawful stop is justified by the existence of [that] warrant."

  2. State v. Millerton

    2015 Ohio 34 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 29 times

    “Pursuant to Terry, police officers are allowed to perform limited protective searches for concealed weapons when the surrounding circumstances create a suspicion that an individual may be armed and dangerous.” State v. Harding, 180 Ohio App.3d 497, 2009-Ohio-59, 905 N.E.2d 1289 (2d Dist.), overruled on other grounds, State v. Gardner, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24308, 2011-Ohio-5692, 2011 WL 5328637. {¶ 25} “The authority to stop an individual does not necessarily equate to authority to search the individual.”

  3. Garnett v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst.

    Civil Action 2:11-cv-00765 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 10, 2012)

    {¶ 19} Additionally, appellant's outstanding warrant constituted an independent justification for the stop. See, e.g., State v. Harding, 180 Ohio App.3d 497, 905 N.E.2d 1289, 2009-Ohio-59, ¶ 18, citing State v. Smith, 2d Dist. No. 22434, 2008-Ohio-5523, ¶ 11 ("[Defendant] had no reasonable expectation of privacy in being free from being stopped arbitrarily by the police since the police were authorized and directed by an Indiana court to arrest him. A search conducted incident to that arrest would have disclosed the guns and drugs recovered by the police.").The applicability of Arizona v. Gant

  4. Garnett v. Warden, Noble Corr. Inst.

    Civil Action 2:11-cv-00765 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    {¶ 19} Additionally, appellant's outstanding warrant constituted an independent justification for the stop. See, e.g., State v. Harding, 180 Ohio App.3d 497, 905 N.E.2d 1289, 2009-Ohio-59, ¶ 18, citing State v. Smith, 2d Dist. No. 22434, 2008-Ohio-5523, ¶ 11 ("[Defendant] had no reasonableexpectation of privacy in being free from being stopped arbitrarily by the police since the police were authorized and directed by an Indiana court to arrest him. A search conducted incident to that arrest would have disclosed the guns and drugs recovered by the police.").

  5. State v. Carter

    2022 Ohio 91 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    "Pursuant to Terry, police officers are allowed to perform limited protective searches for concealed weapons when the surrounding circumstances create a suspicion that an individual may be armed and dangerous." State v. Harding, 180 Ohio App.3d 497, 2009-Ohio-59, 905 N.E.2d 1289 (2d Dist.), overruled on other grounds, State v. Gardner, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24308, 2011-Ohio-5692.

  6. State v. Bunn

    2021 Ohio 3636 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)

    Statev. Harding, 180 Ohio App.3d 497, 2009-Ohio-59, 905 N.E.2d 1289 (2d Dist.), overruled on other grounds, State v. Gardner, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24308, 2011-Ohio-5692. "[T]he standard to perform a protective search, like the standard for an investigatory stop, is an objective one based on the totality of the circumstances.

  7. State v. Mallory

    2020 Ohio 4848 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

    "Pursuant to Terry, police officers are allowed to perform limited protective searches for concealed weapons when the surrounding circumstances create a suspicion that an individual may be armed and dangerous." State v. Harding , 180 Ohio App.3d 497, 2009-Ohio-59, 905 N.E.2d 1289 (2d Dist.), overruled on other grounds, State v. Gardner , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24308, 2011-Ohio-5692 . "The authority to stop an individual does not necessarily equate to authority to search the individual."

  8. State v. Wheeler

    2017 Ohio 4013 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)

    "Pursuant to Terry, police officers are allowed to perform limited protective searches for concealed weapons when the surrounding circumstances create a suspicion that an individual may be armed and dangerous." State v. Harding, 180 Ohio App.3d 497, 2009-Ohio-59, 905 N.E.2d 1289 (2d Dist.), overruled on other grounds, State v. Gardner, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24308, 2011-Ohio-5692. {¶ 23} "The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence * * *."

  9. State v. Kinnison

    2016 Ohio 3481 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)

    "Pursuant to Terry, police officers are allowed to perform limited protective searches for concealed weapons when the surrounding circumstances create a suspicion that an individual may be armed and dangerous." State v. Harding, 180 Ohio App.3d 497, 2009-Ohio-59, 905 N.E.2d 1289 (2d Dist.), overruled on other grounds, State v. Gardner, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24308, 2011-Ohio-5692. {¶ 26} "The authority to stop an individual does not necessarily equate to authority to search the individual."

  10. State v. Hines

    2012 Ohio 207 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)

    {¶1} Defendant-appellant Clemmie Hines appeals from his conviction and sentence for Carrying a Concealed Weapon, following a no-contest plea. Hines contends that the trial court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress, based upon the fact that there was a warrant outstanding for Hines's arrest at the time of the stop, search and seizure. The trial court was following a line of cases from this court, beginning with City of Dayton v. Click, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 14328, 1994 WL 543210, and continuing with such recent cases as State v. Smith, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 22434, 2008-Ohio-5523, and State v. Harding, 180 Ohio App.3d 497, 2009-Ohio-59. In State v. Gardner, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 24308, 2011-Ohio-5692, we recently overruled that line of cases.