Criminal law—When police officer stops vehicle based on probable cause that traffic violation has occurred, the stop is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution even if the officer had some ulterior motive for making the stop.
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at
76 Ohio St.3d 107
.]
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CASAS ET AL., APPELLANTS.
[Cite as State v. Casas,
1996-Ohio-423
.]
Criminal law—When police officer stops vehicle based on probable cause that
traffic violation has occurred, the stop is not unreasonable under the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution even if the officer
had some ulterior motive for making the stop.
(No. 96-679—Submitted April 30, 1996—Decided July 24, 1996.)
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Medina County, Nos. 2451-M and
2452-M.
__________________
Dunn & Hare Co., L.P.A, and Kevin W. Dunn, for appellants.
__________________
{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority
Dayton v. Erickson (1996),
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and STRATTON, JJ.,
concur.
PFEIFER, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in
Dayton v. Erickson (1996),
