We don't need no stinking jurisdiction

[CDL holder]

Cops don't need jurisdiction in Ohio anymore, according to this story in the Columbus Dispatch.

I believe it's always been that way in Indiana but Ohio used to need you to be in their jurisdiction before they could stop you. Richmond, IN, police sit out by Cambridge City on I-70 all the time, about 15 miles from their city.

[delta5]

I know the state line winds all around there. Its not a straight line.

[Opie]

You are reading a news story. There is probably much more to this. Let me see if I can find link to the decision.

Paul

[Opie]

Here is a link to the decision:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/do...9-ohio-316.pdf

The Court found that, although the officer was acting outside of his jurisdiction, there was probably cause for the stop and search. The Court framed the issue as follows:[quote]
The appellate court's focus on the fact that Sergeant Hershberger was outside of his jurisdiction and on his reasons for being there is irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis. The sole focus of the inquiry should have been on the stop itself because the violation of R.C. 2935.03 does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation for the reasons expressed in Moore.

The Court was referring to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Virginia v. Moore, 128 S. Ct. 1598 (2008) which it interpreted to hold that a law-enforcement officer who witnesses a traffic violation outside of his jurisdiciton has probable cause to make the traffic stop and that the stop is not unreasonable.

The Court set forth its reasoning stating as follows:

Turning to the case before us, it is undisputed that there was a violation of R.C. 2935.03(A)(1). However, the majority of the appellate court did not sufficiently appreciate the importance of the fact that Sergeant Hershberger personally observed Jones driving without headlights in the dark in clear contravention of several Ohio statutes. This conduct constituted a traffic violation, thereby giving Sergeant Hershberger probable cause to initiate the stop because he had personally observed the violation.

R.C. 2935.03(A)(1) allows law enforcement authorities to "arrest and detain, until a warrant can be obtained, a person found violating [certain laws and regulations], within the limits of the political subdivision...."

The Court found that the Ohio legislature did not enact a remedy for violations of R.C. 2935.03(A)(1) stating as follows:

Although it could have done so, the General Assembly chose not to provide any remedy for a violation of R.C. 2935.03(A)(1). Thus, pursuant Moore, we are not in a position to rectify this legislative oversight by elevating a violation of R.C. 2935.03 to a Fourth Amendment violation and imposing the exclusionary rule, because the stop in this case was constitutionally sound.

So, this is what it all appears to mean:

An officer's stop of a vehicle outside of his jurisdiction and related questioning and search do not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures so long as the officer has probable cause to believe the detainee committed a crime.p

Paul Taylor
Attorney
Truckers Justice Center
Employment Lawyer Burnsville Minnesota Wrongful Termination Whistleblower Attorney

NOTHING IN THIS POST SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS CREATING AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

[CDL holder]

Opie, I'm not sure that I learned anything from your post that I didn't learn from the Dispatch story. Can you tell me what I missed? You gave a lot of background but it just put meat on the bones--it didn't change anything, right?

My question would be if it is simply a finding that it's not a 4th amendment violation, what about a guy that knows that the officer has no jurisdiction and chooses to disobey the officer? The officer out of jurisdiction would presumably have only the powers of arrest given to citizens in Ohio, that is the power to arrest for a felony in progress.

[Opie]

No, the newspaper article was accurate. I just wanted to see specifically what was stated by the Court.

My analysis was based upon a reading of the decision. That I know how to do. But I am not familiar with Ohio State Statutes and case law so I do not know the answer to your question. In the case decided yesterday though, the officer witnessed a misdemeanor and made the stop outside of his jurisdiction. Thus, if Ohio State law allows citizens' arrests only in the case of felonies, the officers authority would appear to go beyond that.