Source: https://opd.ohio.gov/The-Library/Criminal-Law-Casebook/Automobiles
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:45:04+00:00

Document:
State v. Hochhausler (1996), 76 Ohio St. 3d 455, 466 -- "The private interest in a vehicle...is different from the interest in a driver's license. A motor vehicle may be the subject of multiple private interests, i.e., a jointly owned family automobile or, as here, a company owned vehicle, and the due process constriction on the state should be afforded to any person or entity with an interest in the instrumentality of the criminal offense."
State v. Vitale (1994), 96 Ohio App. 3d 695 -- Once vehicle had been returned to its owner, garageman's lien was extinguished, and he had no possessory interest which could be the subject of a theft charge.
State v. Howell (1994), 64 Ohio Misc. 2d 23 -- Dealer filed unauthorized use of a motor vehicle charges against a truck purchaser who did not carry through with financing and failed to return the truck upon demand. Court finds that the defendant had a legitimate claim to possession, though possibly inferior to that of the dealer, and that there was not probable charge for the case to go forward.
State v. Lindsey, 190 Ohio App. 3d 595, 2010-Ohio-5859 – In a vehicular assault case the court used a superseded common law definition of operation, broader than the controlling statutory definition. Court refuses plain error reversal. Both definitions include driving and the defendant was alone in her car.
State v. Huddleston, 173 Ohio App. 3d 17, 2007-Ohio-4455 – Defendant was arrested inside a store for shoplifting. Search incident to arrest turned up keys to a rental car legally parked on the store lot. Car was impounded and searched. Methamphetamine was found during inventory search. City ordinance and police directive cited by the state did not vindicate the search. Nor was an unwritten department police to impound in such circumstances constitutionally reasonable. Court‘s prior decision involving a car that had been stopped by an officer in a legal parking space distinguished on the basis the operator was in the car at the time and the officer exerted control as to the movement of the vehicle.
State v. Heap, Hamilton App. No. C-040007, 2004-Ohio-5850 -- The owner-opinion rule permits owners to testify as to the value of their property as non-experts. Students who were the equitable owners of cars damaged during a "Cinco de Stratford" student drinking party could testify as to value as equitable owners, though their parents held title.
State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St. 3d 59 -- Since R.C. 4503.182 does not require that temporary tags be displayed in any particular manner, once an officer has seen a tag lying inside the rear window, the failure to display is no longer a specific articulable factor justifying investigative detention. Also see State v. Riddle (1995), 104 Ohio App. 3d 679.
Pennsylvania v. Labron (1996), 518 U.S. 938 -- "If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits police to search the vehicle without more." There need be no further demonstration of exigent circumstances. The automobile exception as it has evolved rests on both exigent circumstances and a decreased expectation of privacy in an automobile due to its pervasive regulation.
State v. Peek (1996), 110 Ohio App. 3d 165 -- Defendant entered a no contest plea to receiving stolen property, specifically a motor vehicle. Judge found him guilty of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Defendant appealed. Held that no contest plea placed defendant in jeopardy, and double jeopardy bars reprosecution for RSP. Further held that unauthorized use is not a lesser included offense, leading to reversal of that conviction. However, defendant may still be prosecuted for unauthorized use.
State v. Cornette (January 25, 1990), Franklin Co. App. Nos. 89AP-717, 718, unreported (1990 Opinions 252, 256) -- An automobile can be a deadly weapon if used as such, but it must be proven that the defendant intended to use his vehicle as a deadly weapon and did not merely attempt to flee the scene. Also see State v. Orlett (1975), 44 Ohio Misc. 7, 10; State v. Brandon (February 7, 1985), Franklin Co. App. No. 84AP-829, unreported (1985 Opinions 327).
State v. Finnegan (1983), 8 Ohio App. 3d 432 -- An automobile is not included within the meaning of the word "premises" for purposes of the criminal trespass statute.
State v. Carroll (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 313 -- Volkswagen bus is not an "unoccupied structure" for purposes of the breaking and entering statute.
State v. Finch (1998), 131 Ohio App. 3d 571 -- The shell remaining after removal of tires, wheels, engine, doors, seats and top held to still be a "motor vehicle."

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