State v. Davis

5 Citing cases

  1. Wiley v. City of Columbus

    36 F.4th 661 (6th Cir. 2022)   Cited 22 times

    A hobble strap "is a black nylon strap that goes around the ankles and attaches to the handcuffs." State v. Davis , No. 99AP-1428, 2000 WL 1455680, at *2, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4429, at *5 (Ohio Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2000). The purpose of a hobble strap is to control an individual's feet and restrict his ability to kick.

  2. Wiley v. City of Columbus

    545 F. Supp. 3d 567 (S.D. Ohio 2021)   Cited 2 times

    A hobble strap "is a black nylon strap that goes around the ankles and attaches to the handcuffs." State v. Davis, No. 99AP-1428, 2000 WL 1455680, at *2, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4429, at *5 (Ohio Ct. App. Sep. 28, 2000). "A hobble strap controls a person's feet ... it goes around their feet, and then when they stand up to walk, [officers] move it up around their knees so they can move their feet to walk."

  3. State v. Blanton

    2015 Ohio 4620 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    State v. Blackson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 17971, 1997 WL 89218, *2 (Feb. 26, 1997), citing State v. Connor, 81 Ohio App.3d 829, 832, 612 N.E.2d 421 (9th Dist.1992) ; see also State v. Cooper, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2005–A–0025, 2006-Ohio-869, 2006 WL 456917, ¶ 24 ; State v. Davis, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 99AP–1428, 2000 WL 1455680, *6 (Sep. 28, 2000). Finally,

  4. City of Columbus v. Clark

    2015 Ohio 2046 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)

    {¶ 37} "The reasonableness of force is measured by the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether she is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." State v. Davis, 10th Dist. No. 99AP-1428 (Sept. 28, 2000), citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). See also Columbus v. Purdie, 10th Dist. No. 84AP-127 (Nov. 29, 1984) (finding officers' use of force by wrestling defendant to the ground and using mace to be warranted in response to defendant's attempt to flee and physical struggle after arrest).

  5. State v. Cooper

    2006 Ohio 869 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)

    {¶ 24} The State does not argue that the conduct constituting "harboring or "concealing" was Cooper's hollering and screaming, but, rather, her act of blocking the doorway so that the police could not enter the residence to apprehend Cruz. "Harboring or concealing requires an overt act that does in fact hinder the discovery of apprehension of the person sought by the police." State v. Blackson (Feb. 26, 1997), 9th Dist. No. 17971, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 636, at *6; accord State v. Davis (Sept. 28, 2000), 10th Dist. No. 99AP-1428, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4429, at *15-*16 (and the cases cited therein). Cooper blocked the doorway to her residence, thereby hindering the apprehension of Cruz until she could be forcibly removed.