Opinion ID: 1060645
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Case Law of Ohio

Text: Although this Court is presented with an issue of first impression, courts of other jurisdictions with similar statutes have found it necessary to craft a standard by which to determine what constitutes satisfactory evidence of identification. Although not as persuasive as an opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court would have been, the standard enunciated by the Ohio Court of Appeals offers compelling guidance. In State v. Satterwhite, the Ohio Court of Appeals considered the identification exception to Ohio's cite and release statute. [8] 123 Ohio App.3d 322, 704 N.E.2d 259 (1997). In Satterwhite, a police officer stopped the defendant for jaywalking. Id. at 260. The defendant was asked if he had any identification, and he answered no. Id. He was arrested, placed in a police vehicle, and searched. Id. The defendant was then asked for his name and social security number, both of which he gave. Id. The officer verified the defendant's name, social security number, and physical description using a computer in the vehicle. Id. The trial court found that the defendant had been denied an opportunity to offer satisfactory evidence of his identity because the officer had not attempted to ascertain his identity before placing him in the vehicle. Id. The Court of Appeals agreed, reasoning that an objective standard of reasonableness should be used when determining what evidence of identification is satisfactory. Id. at 261. As posited by the Satterwhite Court, the inquiry should be whether the police officer is objectively reasonable in rejecting the computer information as satisfactory proof of identity when the computer verifies the information that the officer has been given. Id. [9]