Dec 022010
 December 2, 2010  Posted by  Court, Surveillance

Sometimes I get a mental image of someone gritting their teeth while they’re typing. John Wesley Hall Jr. writes:

In a GPS case, where all the right things were argued, Ohio’s 12th District Court of Appeals rejects NY’s Weaver (2009) and Washington’s Jackson (2003) because the Ohio Supreme Court says that the state constitution is to be interpreted like the Fourth Amendment. The opinion glaringly omits reference to the D.C. Cir’s Maynard (2010)State v. Johnson, 2010 Ohio 5808, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 4892 (12th Dist. November 29, 2010).


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.