Online Catalog of Library Holdings Now Available

The Wayne County Law Library Online Catalog is now available.  This catalog of the print collection may be searched by author, title, subject or keyword.   The home page also links to a list of

• current subscriptions
• online resources from Westlaw
• online resources from Lexis

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)

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

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.

Ohio Trial Practice 2013 Ed. (Baldwin's Ohio Handbook Series)

New features and recent developments in this 2013 edition include:

• Does the attorney-client relationship end when the client hires a replacement lawyer and a lawyer to pursue a malpractice claim against the allegedly negligent lawyer, even thought the client fails to fire that lawyer? See Ruf v. Belfance, 2013-Ohio-160, 2013 WL 243992, para. 14 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Summit County 2013), discussed in Section 1:8
• Should a defendant be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing when the trial court had failed to tell him that he was subject to a mandatory sentence? See State v. Dunham, 2012-Ohio-2957, para. 17, 2012 WL 2479542, (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. Richland County 2012), discussed in Section 4:24
• Does the attorney-client privilege extend to an attorney's communications with a corporate client's corporate parents or affiliates.? See MA Equip. Leasing I, L.L.C. v. Tilton, 2012-Ohio-4668, N.E. 2d 1072 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. Franklin County 2012), appeal not allowed, 2013-Ohio-553(Ohio 2013), discussed in Section 19:7

Ohio Arrest, Search and Seizure 2013 Ed. (Baldwin's Handbook Series)

Recent developments covered in the 2013 edition include:

• Is police use of a drug-sniffing dog on the porch of a house, to investigate an unverified tip that marijuana is being grown in the house a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes?  See Florida v. Jardines, 2013 WL 1196577 (U.S. 2013), discussed in Section 1:14 of this book.
• Will an outstanding warrant save an illegal stop where, at the time of the stop, the officer was unaware of the warrant?  See State v. Gardner, 2012-Ohio-5683, 984 N.E.2d 1025 (2012), discussed in section 15:17.
• Is a questionable affidavit for a search warrant to search for child pornography on a computer sufficiently bolstered by cyber tips from Yahoo? See State v. Eal, 2012-Ohio-1373, 2012 WL 1078331 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. Franklin County 2012), appeal not allowed, 132 Ohio St. 3d 1515, 2012-Ohio-4021, 974 N.E.2d 113 (2012) discussed in Section 7:6.

Baldwin's Ohio Employment Practices Law

Recent developments in the 2013 edition include:

• Discussion of rulingsof the National Labor Relations Board as to whether widely observed employer practices impermissibly restrict concerted activity by employees in violation of federal law. See section 2:4.

• The decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. City of Youngstown, 133 Ohio St. 3d 174, 2012-Ohio-4247, 977 N.E. 2d 582 (2012), in which the court held that an employer had an affirmative responsibility to provide an employee notice of the employee's discharge within a reasonable time after the discharge occurred, to avoid impeding the discharged employee's 90-day notification oblications under the Ohio statute governing the time limit for an employee to provide written notice to an employer of a worker's compensation retaliation claim against the employer. See section 3:36.