# State v. Nguyen

> Ohio Court of Appeals · June 4, 2004 · 157 Ohio App. 3d 482

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3765821

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. NGUYEN Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 4, 2004
- **Citations:** 157 Ohio App. 3d 482; 2004 Ohio 2879; 811 N.E.2d 1180
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Singer
- **Judges:** Handwork, Pietrykowski, Singer
- **Cited by:** 33 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/3765821

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that trial court’s order allegedly misinterpreting the scope of Crim.R. 16 was subject to de novo review

## Opinion text

Singer, Judge,
concurring.
{¶ 65} I concur in the decision and finding of this court. In addition, I would follow the suggestion in
United States v. Wood,
915 F.Supp. at 1136, as cited in Judge Handwork’s decision. A challenge to reliability, based on the quality of the training of both the dog and the handler, the health of the drug dog, or any other factor particular to the facts of the case that could call into question the reliability of the search should not be foreclosed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3765821. Public record. Not legal advice.