# State v. Mitchell

> Ohio Court of Appeals · April 15, 1993 · 87 Ohio App. 3d 484

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3729996

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. MITCHELL, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 15, 1993
- **Citations:** 87 Ohio App. 3d 484; 622 N.E.2d 680; 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2138
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Harsha
- **Judges:** Grey, Abele, Harsha
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3729996

## Opinion text

Harsha, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Given the specific and narrow facts of this case, I dissent. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Given the
*496
existence of probable cause, including the driver’s admission concerning the existence and location of the drugs and appellant’s access to them, the destructible nature of the evidence involved, and the greater degree of intrusion involved in detaining the appellant until a warrant could be obtained, the rationale set forth in
Cupp v. Murphy
(1973), 412 U.S. 291 , 93 S.Ct. 2000 , 36 L.Ed.2d 900 , as followed in
State v. Wamsley
(May 8, 1989), Madison App. No. CA88-11-026, unreported, 1989 WL 47883 , convinces me that the search was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. I am quick to acknowledge, however, that neither proximity nor probable cause standing alone or together is normally sufficient to overcome the warrant requirement for searches of the person.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3729996. Public record. Not legal advice.