# State v. Myers

> Ohio Court of Appeals · May 18, 2001 · 143 Ohio App. 3d 342

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3768944

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. MYERS, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 18, 2001
- **Citations:** 143 Ohio App. 3d 342; 757 N.E.2d 1258
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brogan
- **Judges:** Grady, Young, Brogan
- **Cited by:** 4 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/3768944

## Opinion text

Brogan, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in Judge Grady’s opinion because the defendant failed to make the preliminary showing required by
Franks v. Delaware
(1978), 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 . I write separately, however, to express my concerns about the trial court’s adoption of “a surveillance location privilege” in this case. I believe that the trial court should carefully consider the factors enunciated in
Roviaro v. United States
(1957), 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 , before sustaining the government’s request to prevent disclosure of a surveillance location.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3768944. Public record. Not legal advice.