Daniel Gigiano Reviews Parked Car Search Decision

This blog is a part of series of reviews of important court decisions for the residents of Medina County, Wayne County and Summit County.  These decisions usually come from the United States Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court or the Ninth District Court of Appeals.  In this series, Attorney Daniel Gigiano reviews such decisions and their impact on people’s lives.

In this article, I will be reviewing the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State of Ohio v. Leak.  In this 2016 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the  police cannot search a legally parked car without a warrant.  The arrest of an occupant of the vehicle does not, by itself, give the police authority to search a legally parked vehicle. 

This case began when the Richland County Sheriff’s Office issued a warrant for the suspect’s arrest for domestic violence.  The Mansfield police department acted on the warrant when they searched the area where the suspect lived and found a legally parked car matching the description of the suspect’s vehicle.  The suspect was ordered out of the car, arrested and placed into the back of the police car.  Someone else was in the driver’s seat.  Although the driver had a clean driving record, the driver was ordered out of the vehicle.  The officer called for a tow truck and conducted an inventory search of the vehicle which revealed a firearm.  The suspect

then admitted that he owned the firearm. 

The Ohio Supreme Court held that this was an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article One of the Ohio Constitution.  This was a good result because the police had no reason to tow the car, as there was a valid driver in control of it.  This car was not likely to simply be abandoned after the arrest, which may have otherwise justified towing the vehicle.    

Attorney Gigiano is a Wadsworth criminal law lawyer in Medina County.  Call now at 330-336-3330 if you need the services of a Wooster criminal law lawyer near Orrville, an Akron criminal law lawyer near Barberton, or a Massillon criminal law lawyer near Canal Fulton.      

         

Daniel Gigiano Reviews Miranda Warnings

This blog is a part of series of reviews of important court decisions for the residents of Medina County, Wayne County and Summit County.  These decisions usually come from the United States Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court or the Ninth District Court of Appeals.  In this series, Attorney Daniel Gigiano reviews such decisions and their impact on people’s lives.

In 1966, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, known as Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).  This case followed a series of cases involving coerced confessions and questionable police procedures.  The Supreme Court finally decided that outlawing forced confessions was not enough, but that the confessions while in custody must be part of a knowing and voluntary waiver of one’

s Fifth Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution.  The high court looked to the FBI procedures at the time, which required agents to read suspects their rights prior to conducting such interrogations.  The court declared that, before the police can question someone who is in custody, they must give Miranda warnings, which are:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.

If the police or government agent fails to comply with this requirement, the confession may be suppressed or excluded from the trial.  The United States Supreme Court then took the time to define what it means to be in custody when it stated that the warnings must be given “when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way, and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized.  Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege.” 

Attorney Daniel Gigiano believes the United States Supreme Court’s decision helped promote justice and the rule of law in the United States.  Some opponents criticized the court for overreaching, creating rules without authority, and making it more difficult to get confessions.  However, confessions obtained by force, intimidation and fear are not very reliable.  In such stressful conditions, many people may confess to something they did not do just to tell the police what they want to hear and/or to get free from that intimidating moment.  Less enlightened societies often obtain such confessions, only to be met with skepticism and distaste from nations that believe in freedom and the rule of law. 

Attorney Daniel Gigiano’s office is located in downtown Wadsworth, Ohio.  He has been practicing since 1993 and in Ohio since 1999.  He can be reached at 330-336-3330.  To learn more about Attorney Daniel Gigiano’s credentials, take a look at his website or his reviews on Daniel Gigiano’s Reviews and Daniel Gigiano’s Ratings.                   

Daniel Gigiano Reviews Ohio Supreme Court Sentencing Decision

This blog is a part of series of reviews of important court decisions for the residents of Medina County, Wayne County and Summit County.  These decisions usually come from the United States Supreme Court, the Ohio Supreme Court or the Ninth District Court of Appeals.  In this series, Attorney Daniel Gigiano reviews such decisions and their impact on people’s lives.

Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision on misdemeanor sentences.  Prior to this decision, some courts allowed misdemeanor sentences to be tacked onto felony sentences, commonly referred to as consecutive sentences.  Other courts required such sentences to run at the same time, commonly known as concurrent sentences.  One of the duties of the Ohio Supreme Court is to resolve such conflicts so that the people of the State of Ohio have one rule throughout the state, rather than rules that change depending on which county your court is in.  This reduces confusion and promotes uniformity of laws. 

In a 2016 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that misdemeanor sentences should be served concurrently with felony sentences.  In other words, the sentences should be served at the same time, rather than back-to-back.

In this important case, the Defendant pled guilty to a count of felony receiving stolen property and a count of misdemeanor receiving stolen property.  The trial judge sentenced the Defendant to 11 months in prison for the felony and 6 months in jail for the misdemeanor, each to run consecutively for a total of 17 months.  The Defendant was charged with two more felony counts of receiving stolen property.  He pled to those and received two more consecutive sentences of 11 months each for a total of 22 months to begin after he finished serving the 17 months from the previous conviction.  Facing such an inordinate amount of time, the Defendant appealed.

 

The Ohio Supreme Court decided that Ohio law generally required misdemeanor sentences to be served at the same time as felony sentences. This same Ohio law lists three exceptions to this rule: (1) pandering sexually oriented matter involving children; (2) escape; and (3) possession of a deadly weapon while under detention.  These misdemeanors were classified as being serious enough to allow, but not require, the jail sentences to run consecutively with a separate felony conviction.    

Attorney Daniel Gigiano believes the Ohio Supreme Court got this one right.   A plain reading of Ohio Revised Code 2929.41 supports this result.  While there is language in the statute that opponents would say supports a different result, that language does not create a new rule, but simply clarifies how to carry out the rule that misdemeanor and felony offenses are to be served concurrently. 

Attorney Daniel Gigiano’s office is located in downtown Wadsworth, Ohio.  He has been practicing since 1993 and in Ohio since 1999.  He can be reached at 330-336-3330. 

         

Daniel Gigiano Reviews

Hard work, dedication to the clients’ interests and commitment to quality are the hallmarks of an attorney’s trade.  It could be said that these are the building blocks of any successful business.  When an attorney with the right amount of knowledge and experience takes this approach, results begin to happen.  Results lead to positive reviews from clients.  In this case, Daniel Gigiano reviews.

How did I get this experience?  After graduating from law school and passing the bar in 1993, I started off prosecuting dozens of jury trials as an assistant prosecutor.  I took that experience into private practice, winning the first criminal defense case that I took to a jury trial in 2000.  It was an assault case that not only resulted in a not guilty verdict, but I portrayed the victim as the instigator of the entire incident. 

I continued to be aggressive, winning a DUI case in 2002, a felony drug case in 2002, forcing the State of Ohio to dismiss over 100 felony counts against my client in 2003, winning a felony theft of a motor vehicle case in 2007, obtaining a dismissal of a DUI case in 2007, winning a sexual imposition case in 2011, and winning an assault case in 2015.  These are not the only cases I tried, as I have tried over 40 jury trials to a verdict. 

Sometimes, victories happen in the courts of appeals.  My legal argument carried the day when the Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed a permanent custody ruling against my client.  This case, which is now commonly referred to as In Re A.P. II, established the legal standards and rights of legal custodians when faced with children services agencies.  The upshot is that my client was no longer permanently severed from the child’s life and was permitted to reunite with the child.  I have also helped other people in children services cases, obtaining a dismissal in 2012, and preventing a children services case and criminal charges from being filed in 2014. 

I handled substantial business bankruptcies.  In one case, I removed a large business mortgage while allowing the clients to keep their home in bankruptcy. In another, I obtained the discharge of over one million dollars in debt. 

Finally, I have worked hard to get serious results in personal injury cases, where clients have suffered serious injuries or served defective food. 

As a result, I have earned the respect of my clients and colleagues in reviews in Yelp, Yahoo, Lawyers.com, Avvo’s attorney reviews, and Avvo’s client reviews.  You can find more of these reviews on Daniel Gigiano’s Reviews and Daniel Gigiano’s Ratings.                   

With so much as stake, there is no substitute for experience, knowledge and dedication.  Contact Attorney Gigiano today at 330-336-3330.  Attorney Gigiano’s office is conveniently located in downtown Wadsworth, Ohio.