State v. Shacklock

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Armington

    2019 Ohio 1713 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    {¶37} "In evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as ‘viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.’ " James at ¶18, citing Gray , 2000 WL 973411, at 3, quoting State v. Shacklock , 11th Dist. Trumbull Nos. 98-T-0005 & 98-T-0083, 1999 WL 266620, 4 (Apr. 30, 1999), quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St. 86, 87-88, 48 N.E. 136 (1991). "The court reviewing the officer's actions must give due weight to the officer's experience and training, and view the evidence as it would be understood by those in law enforcement."

  2. State v. James

    2010 Ohio 4556 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010)

    {¶ 18} "In evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as `viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.'" Id. at 8, quoting State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), 11th Dist. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, 4, quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St. 86, 87-88. "The court reviewing the officer's actions must give due weight to the officer's experience and training, and view the evidence as it would be understood by those in law enforcement."

  3. State v. Haynes

    2004 Ohio 3514 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

    An investigative stop is a seizure which is valid provided a reasonable and prudent police officer, viewing the totality of the circumstances, has a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 181; State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), 11th Dist. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, at 4. {¶ 14} In addition, the Supreme Court of Ohio and this court have "`repeatedly held that a minor violation of a traffic regulation * * * that is witnessed by a police officer is, standing alone, sufficient justification to stop a vehicle.'"

  4. State v. Teter

    Case No. 99-A-0073 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2000)   Cited 21 times

    When evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as "`viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as the unfold.'" State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), Trumbull App. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, unreported, at 4, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 87-88. See, also, State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, paragraph one of the syllabus; Gray at 8; Hrubik at 7.

  5. State v. Gray

    Case No. 99-G-2249 (Ohio Ct. App. Jul. 14, 2000)   Cited 13 times

    In evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as "viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold." State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), Trumbull App. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, unreported, at 4, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88. See, also, State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Jennings (Mar. 3, 2000), Trumbull App. No. 98-T-0196, unreported, at 3, 2000 WL 263741; Lillstrung at 3.

  6. State v. Hrubik

    Accelerated Case No. 99-A-0024 (Ohio Ct. App. Jun. 30, 2000)   Cited 12 times
    In Hrubik, where this court held the stop was constitutionally valid, there was an identified citizen informant and independent corroboration by the responding officer. 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 2999, *1-*2, *8-*9.

    In evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as "viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold." State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), Trumbull App. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, unreported, at 4, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88. See, also, State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Jennings (Mar. 3, 2000), Trumbull App. No. 98-T-0196, unreported, at 3, 2000 WL 263741; Lillstrung at 3.

  7. State v. Eskridge

    No. 98-P-0130 ACCELERATED (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2000)   Cited 5 times
    In State v. Eskridge (Mar. 31, 2000), Portage App. No. 98-P-0130, unreported, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1439, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case, holding that, accepting the trial court's findings of fact as true, the officer had reasonable suspicion to continue his investigation even after he discovered that the license plate numbers were slightly different.

    In evaluating the propriety of an investigative stop, the reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the stop as "`viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.'" State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), Trumbull App. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, unreported, at 4, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 2020, quoting State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88. See, also, State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, paragraph one of the syllabus; Schoenfeld at 3-4.

  8. State v. Jennings

    No. 98-T-0196 ACCELERATED (Ohio Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2000)   Cited 28 times

    This court has consistently held that a police officer who stops a driver for a traffic violation, may arrest that driver for driving under the influence after considering the totality of the circumstances, indicia such as the time of night, smell of alcohol, erratic driving and unsatisfactory completion of the field sobriety tests exist. State v. Shacklock (Apr. 30, 1999), Trumbull App. Nos. 98-T-0005 and 98-T-0083, unreported, at 6; State v. Evans (Mar. 27, 1998), Geauga App. No. 97-G-2069, unreported, at 10, fn. 2. In the instant matter, because Officer Vens saw appellant commit a traffic infraction, he had probable cause to perform the traffic stop.