Case No. 2010-1315 State of Ohio v. Dennis Gould

 

Date

09-07-2011

Duration

00:35:06

Download

Download File : 360p
 
 
Set In Point : sec Set Out Point : sec
Width : px Height : px
Code :
 Facebook Embed : To embed this video into your Facebook page, copy and paste the above URL into Facebook's 'Link' box in its 'Share' options.
Please Note : End points and dimensions are not recognized by Facebook.
Set In Point : sec Set Out Point : sec
URL :
 
Did Appeals Court Err In Applying Exclusionary Rule to Bar Evidence Obtained Through Warrantless Search of Hard Drive?

Where Police Believed Hard Drive Had Been ‘Abandoned’ by Owner

State of Ohio v. Dennis Gould, Case no. 2010-1315
6th District Court of Appeals (Lucas County)

ISSUE: When a computer hard drive is taken to police by a member of the owner’s family contrary to the owner’s instructions not to allow anyone else to touch it, and the family member tells officers she suspects but does not know that the drive may contain evidence of illegal acts, if the police conduct a warrantless search of the hard drive without the owner’s consent based on their assumption that it is “abandoned” property, does that search violate the owner’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches, and require a court later hearing criminal charges against the owner to suppress evidence obtained through the search under the exclusionary rule?
 
 
TimeTitle
00:00:42Evy M. Jarrett for the state and Lucas County prosecutor’s office
00:15:02Jeremy J. Masters for Dennis Gould
00:33:13Summation: Evy M. Jarrett for the state and Lucas County prosecutor’s office