# State v. Huth

> Ohio Supreme Court · June 18, 1986 · 24 Ohio St. 3d 114

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759323

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Huth
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 18, 1986
- **Citations:** 24 Ohio St. 3d 114; 24 Ohio B. 306; 493 N.E.2d 961; 1986 Ohio LEXIS 655
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Holmes
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Only, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 20 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/6759323

## Opinion text

Holmes, J.,
concurring. I must concur in the judgment here, but do so reluctantly because the phraseology of the statute would so require. However, the result is not a reasonable one, in my view, in that I believe that the public policy inherent in the Traffic Code should logically provide that all vehicles involved in apprehension of those involved in violations should be marked in a distinctive manner or color. It would seem that there is no more reasonable basis for a vehicle being used full-time in traffic enforcement to be appropriately marked as a police vehicle than one being utilized basically for security purposes, but also occasionally used, as here, for apprehending traffic violators.
C. Brown, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759323. Public record. Not legal advice.