Doing some back reading, interesting thread, concerning your post 12;
https://forum.freeadvice.com/arrests-searches-warrants-procedure-26/illegal-search-465773.html
For all you constitutional scholars;
this just seems to be wrong. Is there not some constitutional support for contesting this level of crime for such a minor violation, especially considering the realistic possibility it was written as such only to allow otherwise unavailable actions (arrest and searches)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Ohio here most traffic laws are Minor Misdemeanors, which are not arrestable, except if the person refuses to sign the citation, etc.
HOWEVER, a Municipality has Ohio Constitutional authority to classify any Ordinance of thiers an MM or above, as long as state law is not undercut, meaning if state law is an M-4, a city can have it as an M-4, 3-2-1, but NOT MM. Any offense M-4 and above is an arrestable offense, this includes a burnt out tail light.
Any offense over MM is triable by jury though, an MM is not. While it is unlikely an arrest will happen for such, it is never the less authorized by law.
Long before Knowles v. Iowa, we could not search "incident to citation", State v. Darrah.
The Terry case was a Cleveland case, and I have read not only the Appeals court decision on it, but the OSC decision before SCOTUS.
They are detailed about what constitutes an arrest, and transportation to a facility to answer for a crime is "an arrest in the traditional sense".
Now, there is case law from the 6th Circuit that says the mere placement of a person in the back of a police car (emphasis added), is an arrest, however, this is NOT an arrest that would authorize a search "incident to arrest" for 4th AM purposes.
https://forum.freeadvice.com/arrests-searches-warrants-procedure-26/illegal-search-465773.html
For all you constitutional scholars;
this just seems to be wrong. Is there not some constitutional support for contesting this level of crime for such a minor violation, especially considering the realistic possibility it was written as such only to allow otherwise unavailable actions (arrest and searches)?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Ohio here most traffic laws are Minor Misdemeanors, which are not arrestable, except if the person refuses to sign the citation, etc.
HOWEVER, a Municipality has Ohio Constitutional authority to classify any Ordinance of thiers an MM or above, as long as state law is not undercut, meaning if state law is an M-4, a city can have it as an M-4, 3-2-1, but NOT MM. Any offense M-4 and above is an arrestable offense, this includes a burnt out tail light.
Any offense over MM is triable by jury though, an MM is not. While it is unlikely an arrest will happen for such, it is never the less authorized by law.
Long before Knowles v. Iowa, we could not search "incident to citation", State v. Darrah.
The Terry case was a Cleveland case, and I have read not only the Appeals court decision on it, but the OSC decision before SCOTUS.
They are detailed about what constitutes an arrest, and transportation to a facility to answer for a crime is "an arrest in the traditional sense".
Now, there is case law from the 6th Circuit that says the mere placement of a person in the back of a police car (emphasis added), is an arrest, however, this is NOT an arrest that would authorize a search "incident to arrest" for 4th AM purposes.
Last edited:
