Good Example Of No.1 Case Study

Heading

The STATE of Ohio v. FARRIS, Supreme Court of Ohio, Decided: July 12, 2006, No. 2004-0604.

Statement of Facts

Stephen Farris was stopped for speeding by a state trooper who after detecting the smell of marijuana questioned the suspect without reading him the Miranda rights. After the suspect had admitted the presence of drug paraphernalia, the trooper read the Miranda rights and then with the help of a fellow officer searched the car and found drug paraphernalia in the vehicle’s trunk.

Procedural History

The suspect contested the admissibility of the testimony and the evidence at the municipal county court which admitted only the set of evidence gotten after the reading of the Miranda rights as well as evidence from the warrantless search. The decision was upheld by the 9th District Court of Appeals but overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Issues

Is testimony and evidence obtained after the provision of unwarned statements by the defendants admissible? Does the reason given by the trooper for the warrantless search qualify as probable cause?

Judgment

All the testimony and evidence obtained by the troopers, in this case, is admissible in a court of law.
Holding
A law enforcement officer should read Miranda rights to a suspect before he or she proceeds to ask questions and conduct a search on his and his property. In this case, the reason given by the officers for conducting the warrantless search (the smell of marijuana) was not enough probable cause to conduct a search in the car’s trunk.

Rule of Law

Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution of the Ohio Constitution was used to determine the admissibility of evidence in this case.

Reasoning

For physical testimony and evidence obtained before administration of Miranda rights to be deemed fully inadmissible, then Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution is assumed to give more protection to a defendant than the Fifth Amendment which is not explicitly clear on the issue.

No. 2

Heading
The STATE of Ohio v. FARRIS, Supreme Court of Ohio, Decided: July 12, 2006, No. 2004-0604
Statement of Facts
A state trooper stopped Stephen Farris on a highway for speeding and without reading him his Miranda rights, he asked him questions about the presence of drugs in the car. The suspect denied using drugs but said that there might be drug paraphernalia in the car. The officer then read the defendant his Miranda rights, asked the questions again to the defendant and proceeded to search the car’s trunk where a glass pipe and cigarette rolling paper were found.
Procedural History
The district court of appeals upheld the decision by a lower court that the evidence obtained after the reading of the Miranda rights could not be suppressed. However, the Supreme Court overturned the defendant’s conviction suppressing the evidence obtained from the car’s trunk and the testimony given by the defendant both before and after being informed of his Miranda rights.
Issues
Is the testimony obtained before and after reading of the Miranda rights admissible in court? Does the probable cause in this case enough to allow a search in both car’s interiors and the trunk?
Judgment
The majority in the Supreme Court ruled that both the testimony obtained before and after the reading of the Miranda rights was inadmissible. In addition, the evidence obtained from the car’s trunk was inadmissible.

Holding

The defendant must be informed of his Miranda rights before he is made to provide statements relate to the case. In addition, the probable cause in the case was only enough to warrant a search of the car’s interior and not the trunk and any evidence found in the trunk was, therefore, inadmissible.

Rule of Law

For this case, Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution was used to guide the decision that both sets of testimonies, as well as the evidence from the trunk of the car, were inadmissible.

Reasoning

Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution is superior to the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitutional and in this case, it makes the testimony and evidence obtained from the search which was conducted without giving the client the Miranda warnings invalid. This section of the Ohio Constitution offers greater protection to the defendant that the Fifth Amendment.

No. 3

Heading
The STATE of Ohio v. FARRIS, Supreme Court of Ohio, Decided: July 12, 2006, No. 2004-0604.
Statement of Facts
21-year-old Stephen Harris was stopped by a state trooper for speeding. The trooper detected the smell of marijuana in the car and proceeded to question Farris before reading him his Miranda rights. The defendant denied drug use but acknowledged the possible presence of some drug associated tools in the car. The trooper read the Miranda rights to the defendant, asked him the questions again and proceeded to search the car’s interiors and trunk where drug related material was found.
Procedural History
The appellate court upheld an earlier decision to admit both the testimony from the defendant after the reading of rights and the evidence from the car including its trunk. This was overturned by the Superior Court where the majority rule declared the evidence to be inadmissible.
Issues
Can testimony obtained from a defendant whereby he acknowledges guilt before being read the Miranda rights admissible in court? Was the probable cause, in this case (the smell of marijuana) enough to allow a warrantless search on the defendant’s trunk?
Judgment

The testimony and evidence from the defendant including the one found in his trunk was inadmissible

Holding
Testimony obtained from a defendant whereby he acknowledges guilt before being read the Miranda rights is not admissible in court. As the probable cause, the smell of marijuana was enough to allow a warrantless search on the defendant’s car interior but not the trunk and anything obtained from the trunk was inadmissible

Legal principle applied

The court utilized Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution to make a ruling on the admissibility of evidence and testimony in court
Reasoning
The Ohio Constitution, Section 10, Article I which is powerful than the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution provides more protection to the defendant, with one of these elements of protection being that evidence from unwarned statements by the defendant are inadmissible.
Works Cited