Source: https://www.golegalllc.com/the-constitutional-basis-for-a-traffic-stop-without-a-warrant/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:16:38+00:00

Document:
Contact our Canton, Ohio DUI Lawyer to determine if the stop (seizure) in your case was unconstitutional.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968) (“No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.” (quoting Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891)).
State v. Farmer, 486 N.E.2d 238, 241 (Ohio App. 6 Dist. 1984) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure constitutes one of the most important guarantees of freedom in a democratic society . . . .”). “Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, which contains language nearly identical to its federal counterpart, also prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.” State v. Orr, 745 N.E.2d 1036, 1038-39 (Ohio 2001).
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925). “[W]e deal here with . . . police conduct-necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat-which historically has not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 20.
Terry, 392 U.S. at 20 (“[T]he conduct involved . . . [here] . . . must be tested by the Fourth Amendment’s general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.”). “An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be “unreasonable” under the circumstances.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996).
Terry, 392 U.S. at 21. “The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances.” Id.
Id. at 12. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police from violating the Fourth Amendment in their efforts to obtain evidence. Id. Courts exclude the evidence to prevent becoming a party to the lawless police conduct. Id.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.