# State v. Whitman

> Ohio Court of Appeals · October 22, 2009 · 184 Ohio App. 3d 733

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6699063

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio v. WHITMAN
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 22, 2009
- **Citations:** 184 Ohio App. 3d 733; 922 N.E.2d 293
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Edwards
- **Judges:** Edwards, Farmer, Gwin
- **Cited by:** 14 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/6699063

## Opinion text

Edwards, Judge,
dissenting.
(¶ 22} I respectfully dissent from the majority’s analysis and disposition of appellant’s sole assignment of error.
{¶ 23} The majority, in ¶ 18, correctly notes that a canine walk-around of a vehicle that occurs during a lawful stop and does not go beyond the period necessary to effectuate the stop and issue a citation does not violate the individual’s constitutional rights. While the majority finds that the “canine-walk around” was not the product of an unreasonably long detention relating to the ultimate issuance of the citation, I disagree.
{¶ 24} After Deputy Stryker’s suspicion that appellee was consuming alcohol was dispelled, Deputy Stryker could have issued a traffic citation to appellee. I would find, for such reason, that the canine walk-around in this case went beyond *741 the period necessary to effectuate the stop and issue a citation to appellee for his traffic offenses and that, therefore, appellee’s constitutional rights were violated.
{¶ 25} On such basis, I would affirm the decision of the trial court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6699063. Public record. Not legal advice.