Friday, July 19, 2013

Searches & Seizures, Arrests and Confessions, 2d (West)

New features and recent developments in the 2013 release (#29) include:

  • Bailey v. U.S. where the Supreme Court held that the Summers rule, which allows police officers executing a search warrant to detain the occupants of the premises while a search is conducted, is confined to those who are present in the immediate vicinity of the premises when the search is being conducted, and does not extend to those who have left the scene. (see Section 6:17)

  • Florida v. Jardines, in which the Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers' use of drug-sniffing dog on front porch of home, to investigate an unverified tip that marijuana was being grown in the home, was a trespassory invasion of the curtilage which constituted a "search" for Forth Amendment purposes. (see Section 8:17)

  • Florida v. Harris where the Supreme Court unanimously held that under the standard for determining probable cause for a search, the showing of the reliability of a drug-detection dog's alert does not require an exhaustive set of records, including a log the the dog's field  performance, and instead, the dog's certification by a bona fide organization after testing in a controlled setting allows a court to presume, subject to any conflicting evidence offered, that the dog's alert provided probable cause to search. (see section 8:29)

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Child Custody Practice and Procedure, 2013 Ed.

New features and recent developments in this 2013 edition include:

  • New and updated cases and references in all chapters, including the Supreme Court's recent Hague Abduction Convention decision in Chafin v. Chafin (Section 3:6)
  • Revised Section 3:28 discussing the registration of child custody orders under UCCJEA
  • Fully updated Appendix 4A regarding child custody criteria in state statutes

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Ohio Planning and Zoning Law 2013 Ed. (Baldwin's Ohio Handbook Series)

New features and recent developments in the 2013 edition include:

  • Rumple Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Colerain Township, 134 Ohio St. 3d 93, 2012-Ohio-3914, 980 N.E. 2d 952 (2012), in which the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a private sanitary landfill is not a public utility and, therefore, cannot be exempt from township zoning when there is "no public regulation or oversight of its rates and charges, no statutory requirement that all solid waste devivered to the landfill be accepted for disposal, and no right of the public to demand and receive its services, " See Section 6:33.
  • Clifton v. Bannchester, 131 Ohio St. 3d 287, 2012-Ohio-780, 964 N.E. 2d 414 (2012), and Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St. 3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 N.E. 2d 977 (2012), two cases in which the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the standing of nonresident landowners to allege a taking of land or a violation of due process or equal protecytion. See section 14:6.