Wednesday, April 15, 2026
State of Ohio v. Danielle Barton, Case No. 2025-0912
First District Court of Appeals (Hamilton County)
State of Ohio v. Elmer Lebron-Novas, Case No. 2025-0643
Sixth District Court of Appeals (Erie County)
State of Ohio v. Robin McClain, Case No. 2025-0573
Eighth District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County)
Did Drug Dog’s Poking Nose Into Vehicle Violate Driver’s Constitutional Rights?
State of Ohio v. Danielle Barton, Case No. 2025-0912
First District Court of Appeals (Hamilton County)
ISSUES:
- Have the police conducted an unconstitutional search of a vehicle when a drug dog, without prompting from its handler, sticks its nose into an open window of the vehicle?
- If drug-related items are detected in a vehicle as a result of a drug dog sticking its nose into the vehicle, should that evidence be excluded from use in a criminal trial?
BACKGROUND:
In April 2023, Danielle Barton was driving in Hamilton County when a police officer pulled her over. The officer stated he stopped Barton because her temporary license plate at the rear of her vehicle was obscured. During the stop, the officer arrested Barton’s passenger after learning he had open arrest warrants .
The officer then asked Barton for consent to search her car, but she declined. A drug-sniffing dog and its handler were brought to the scene, and Barton was told the dog would sniff the outside of the car. When the dog, Falco, approached the driver’s side door, it jumped up and put its head inside the open window for about 3 seconds. The dog then “alerted,” giving its handler the indication that it smelled drugs in the car. The alert prompted the officers to search Barton’s vehicle, and they found two syringes in a bag on the passenger’s side of the car. Testing revealed the syringes contained traces of methamphetamines, oxycodone, and a non-narcotic prescription medication.
Barton was arrested and charged with misdemeanor possession of drug abuse instruments. At the beginning of the criminal proceedings, Barton asked the Hamilton County Municipal Court to suppress the evidence, arguing the search of her car was illegal and violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The trial court judge found that, while the dog was supposed to search only the exterior of the car, putting its paws up to the window and sticking its nose in was instinctive and not at the handler’s direction. The judge found that the dog’s actions didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment, and the judge didn’t suppress the evidence.
Barton pleaded no contest to the charge. She was sentenced to one day in jail, given credit for one day served, and received no fine. The trial court also stayed her sentence, pending the appeal of her conviction. Barton appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision, the First District affirmed her conviction.
Barton appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which agreed to hear the case.
Dog Trespassed Into Vehicle and Invaded Owner’s Privacy, Driver Asserts
Under the Fourth Amendment, police need a search warrant, consent of the driver, or probable cause to search a vehicle, Barton explains. When asked for consent, Barton refused, and police didn’t have a warrant to search the car. When the police dog arrived, it was supposed to conduct a search of the exterior of the car. Because the police didn’t have consent or a warrant, they needed probable cause to search the vehicle, Barton notes. Courts have ruled that if a dog alerts to the scent of contraband by sniffing the exterior of the car, then police have probable cause to search the vehicle, she argues. However, recent decisions by the highest courts in Idaho and Texas have ruled that a drug dog that enters the vehicle or sticks its nose in the car and then alerts to contraband is an illegal search. That is because probable cause to search the vehicles was established by violating the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches, Barton argues.
Barton asserts that under two approaches adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for determining whether a search is legal, the police violated her rights. Based on the 2012 United States v. Jones and the 2013 Florida v. Jardines decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a “property-based” approach to determine whether a search is constitutional. Because the car is her property, Falco trespassed when it stuck its nose in her car, Barton argues. She argues that the law says when a trespass occurs, no matter how slight, the search is illegal and the evidence recovered from the search cannot be used against her.
The other approach stems from U.S. Supreme Court cases beginning in the 1960s and determines whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy outside their home. Courts have found that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their cars, and Falco violated that privacy when it entered, Barton explains.
The trial court and the First District held that Falco’s leap was “instinctive,” and just a dog doing what dogs do, Barton notes. The lower courts found that, since the action was instinctive and not at the direction of the police officer handling Falco, the dog didn’t intend to trespass or violate Barton’s privacy. Because the dog acted on its own, the police shouldn’t be faulted, the courts ruled. Barton argues this isn’t the correct way to view the issue. The dog is a highly trained “tool” of the police, trained to search the exterior of vehicles and alert officers if it detects contraband. If the police didn’t train or handle Falco to operate as it was supposed to, then the police are the ones conducting the illegal search, she argues.
When a drug dog enters a vehicle without consent, without probable cause established by the dog alerting based on exterior sniffing, or without a warrant, the search should be deemed unconstitutional, Barton argues. That would be a straightforward rule that law enforcement could apply, she maintains. Allowing instinctual actions by a drug dog would be more complicated, she asserts. Courts would have to determine whether the dog truly acted out of instinct or whether it was somehow commanded by the officer or thought it was being commanded by the officer to poke into the vehicle, Barton concludes.
Dog’s Instinctual Actions Not a Search, Prosecutor Asserts
The Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office argues that Barton believes Falco should be treated as if the dog were a human officer or a tool, such as a GPS device. There is no reason to treat a dog other than as a dog, and the drug dog in this case acted on its instincts, the office argues. The dog’s actions are not the actions of its handlers, and a handler does not control every action of a dog, the prosecutor asserts. When a dog makes an instinctive jump into an open window because it is following a scent, the government isn’t responsible for the dog’s actions, the prosecutor maintains. Because Barton doesn’t argue that the handler directed Falco to leap up, the police can’t be held responsible for Falco poking its head in the window, the prosecutor asserts.
To use the U.S. Supreme Court’s property-based approach, Barton would have to connect the search to the historical roots of property law, the office notes. A car isn’t similar to a home, but rather it is personal property like a cabinet, the office maintains. Trespass to personal property occurs when someone takes possession of it or interferes with its use. Falco only put its paws on the car, not harming it or interfering with Barton’s use of her car, and didn’t trespass, the prosecutor asserts. Because no trespass took place, the search that followed was legal, the prosecutor argues.
Under the privacy expectation approach, courts have found a drug dog’s sniff doesn’t violate a person’s privacy as long as the canine team is “lawfully present at the location where the sniff occurs,” the prosecutor maintains. When the canine team is at the location of a search, and a dog instinctively sticks its head into the vehicle, there is no privacy violation, and the search is legal, the office asserts. Absent police misconduct, the instinctive acts of drug dogs shouldn’t be viewed as violating the Fourth Amendment, the prosecutor concludes.
Even if the search were deemed illegal, the evidence shouldn’t be excluded, the prosecutor argues. The exclusionary rule is designed to protect against “misuse of power,” and not accidental actions of the government, the prosecutor’s brief explains. The rule is designed to deter Fourth Amendment violations, the prosecutor argues, and in this case, there was no intention to violate the law. Because neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled on whether a dog’s sniff of the interior of the car without being directed by an officer is a search, the officer was acting in good faith, the prosecutor asserts. The evidence should be admitted, and the trial court correctly found that Barton possessed drug abuse instruments, the prosecutor maintains.
Attorney General Supports Prosecutor
The Ohio Attorney General’s Office submitted an amicus curiae brief supporting the prosecutor’s position. The Court will permit the attorney general to share oral argument time with the prosecutor.
Friend-of-Court Briefs Submitted
Three amicus briefs in support of Barton were submitted. The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Ohio filed a joint brief. The Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers jointly submitted a brief.
A brief was jointly submitted by the:
- Cuyahoga County Public Defender’s Office.
- Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
- Ohio Public Defender’s Office.
- Summit Legal Defenders.
– Dan Trevas
Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.
Contacts
Representing Danielle Barton: Parker Rider-Longmaid, parker.rider-longmaid@skadden.com
Representing the State of Ohio from the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office: Norbert Wessels, norbert.wessels@hcpros.org
Representing the Ohio Attorney General’s Office: Mathura Sridharan, mathura.sridharan@ohioago.gov
Did Dashcam Video and Officer Testimony Support Traffic Stop for Tailgating?
State of Ohio v. Elmer Lebron-Novas, Case No. 2025-0643
Sixth District Court of Appeals (Erie County)
ISSUE: If dashcam video shows that a law enforcement officer had a reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle for a traffic violation, must an appeals court uphold a decision that evidence found in the vehicle during the traffic stop could be considered at trial?
BACKGROUND:
In July 2020, Elmer Lebron-Novas was driving at about 9 a.m. on the Ohio Turnpike. He was pulled over by Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper Colt Browne for allegedly tailgating a commercial semi-truck. During the traffic stop, Browne and another trooper who had arrived on scene walked a specially trained dog, or K-9, around the car. The dog “alerted,” which means it signaled the presence of drugs. Browne searched the car and found a package of drugs in the trunk.
Lebron-Novas was arrested and charged with several drug-related offenses. Before his trial, he argued in the Erie County Common Pleas Court that the traffic stop and search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Lebron-Novas contended that the drugs discovered should be excluded at the trial because the trooper stopped him without probable cause.
Trooper Describes What He Saw Before Stopping Car
At a hearing on the request to suppress the evidence found in the car, Browne testified that he was parked that morning at a crossover on the turnpike near mile marker 109. He said he saw a Honda Accord in the far-right lane driving approximately 70 mph behind a semi-truck. Browne said the car was clean, and the driver had his hands at the 10 and 2 positions on the steering wheel, had his hat tipped up, was leaning forward slightly, and looked disheveled. Browne added there was a passenger in the front seat whose feet were on the dashboard and who appeared to be sleeping.
Browne decided to follow the car and caught up to it around mile marker 108. He said the car was much closer to the semi-truck at that point and traveling at about 67 mph. There also was another semi-truck behind the car and a pickup truck in the left lane of the highway. Browne described a formula for calculating a safe driving distance for the car at that speed. Concluding that the car was traveling too closely to the semi-truck, Browne pulled over the car.
The trooper’s footage from his dashboard camera was also admitted as evidence at the hearing, and Browne testified about different points in the video.
In February 2022, the trial court denied Lebron-Novas’ request to suppress the evidence. The court described Browne’s testimony regarding the car’s distance behind the semi-truck and found the testimony to be consistent with the dashcam video. The court stated that Browne had probable cause to believe that Lebron-Novas was following a vehicle too closely, in violation of R.C. 4511.34(A), Ohio’s tailgating law.
Jury Considers Evidence Found in Car During Traffic Stop
At the trial in January 2023, the jury found Lebron-Novas guilty of complicity to trafficking in cocaine and complicity to trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound, as well as complicity to possession of cocaine and complicity to possession of a fentanyl-related compound. In addition, he was convicted of specifications as a major drug offender. His combined prison sentence for the offenses was 14 to 19.5 years.
Lebron-Novas appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth District overturned the trial court decision not to suppress the evidence. The majority identified inconsistencies between Browne’s testimony and the dashcam footage. In one of the inconsistencies, the appeals court stated that Browne said he saw the vehicle following too closely for about a mile, but that wasn’t supported by the video. For most of the time period on the video, Browne’s view was distant and either partially or fully obstructed by the other vehicles, the court noted. The Sixth District concluded that the record didn’t support probable cause to stop the vehicle and ordered the case returned to the trial court for a new trial.
The Erie County prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which agreed to review the issues.
Dashcam Video and Testimony Support Traffic Stop, Prosecutor Argues
The Erie County Prosecutor’s Office contends that the dashcam footage doesn’t contradict Browne’s testimony. Both show Lebron-Novas following the semi-truck too closely, the prosecutor maintains. The “supposed inconsistencies” reflect Browne’s approximations while driving at highway speeds and watching the vehicle, the prosecutor’s brief states, arguing that “[t]he Sixth District majority took them far too literally in finding fault with his testimony,”
The prosecutor contends that even if the Sixth District were correct about the inconsistencies, it failed to determine whether the trial court decision was supported overall by competent, credible evidence. The prosecutor explains that a traffic stop is constitutional if an officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a motorist has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. A trial court reviews the stop by examining all the surrounding circumstances. And an appeals court must accept the trial court’s findings if they are supported by competent, credible evidence, the prosecutor notes.
The dashcam footage itself supports the trial court’s rejection of the motion to suppress because the video shows that the car is following too closely at multiple points, the prosecutor argues. Also, the Sixth District majority didn’t conclude that Browne failed to observe a traffic violation, only that the quality and duration of his observations on the video were different from his testimony, the prosecutor maintains. Taken as a whole, there was competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court decision, the prosecutor asserts.
Video Undermines Trooper’s Testimony, Invalidating Reason for Stop, Driver Responds
Lebron-Novas counters that the prosecutor’s proposition of law simply restates the current law in Ohio. He suggests that the Supreme Court should dismiss the case as improvidently accepted. The Supreme Court considers substantial constitutional questions or questions of great public or great general interest. Whether a lower court correctly applied an established legal standard doesn’t fall into any of those categories, he maintains.
If the Court considers the case, Lebron-Novas emphasizes that the issue is whether the evidence shows Browne had probable cause to initiate the traffic stop for the car following the semi-truck too closely. Ohio’s tailgating law states that a driver “shall not follow another vehicle … more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle … and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.” Lebron-Novas notes that the law doesn’t impose a requirement to stay any fixed number of feet or seconds behind a vehicle. Even though the trooper calculated the safe number of car lengths between the two vehicles based on speed, the law actually requires analyzing whether the distance was reasonable and prudent, Lebron-Novas argues. He adds that the analysis depends on reviewing the surrounding circumstances.
The trooper’s testimony that he saw a tailgating violation near mile marker 108 is contradicted by the dashcam video, Lebron-Novas asserts. He argues the trooper’s claim wasn’t credible because his view at that time was distant and partially obstructed, preventing him from assessing how far away the car was from the semi-truck and whether it was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances.
And even though the video later shows him driving too closely, that distance was reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, Lebron-Novas maintains. He notes there was also a semi-truck behind him and a pickup truck in the left lane beside him. He contends his options were limited, and the only reasonable choice was to maintain a close distance to the semi-truck in front of him until the semi behind him went around. The tailgating law didn’t require him to take some other more dangerous action, he argues. In his view, it instead required him to account for the conditions around him. His distance from the truck, though close, was reasonable and prudent, he concludes.
Attorney General Files Brief, Will Participate in Oral Arguments
An amicus curiae brief supporting the Erie County prosecutor’s position was submitted by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. The attorney general has also been granted permission to share the time allotted to the prosecutor during oral arguments.
– Kathleen Maloney
Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.
Contacts
Representing the State of Ohio from the Erie County Prosecutor’s Office: Kristin Palmer, kpalmer@eriecounty.oh.gov
Representing Elmer Lebron-Novas from the Ohio Public Defender’s Office: Russell Patterson, russell.patterson@opd.ohio.gov
Representing the Ohio Attorney General’s Office: Mathura Sridharan, mathura.sridharan@ohioago.gov
Was Jury Given Enough Evidence to Link Man to Rape?
State of Ohio v. Robin McClain, Case No. 2025-0573
Eighth District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County)
ISSUES:
- Can a jury infer from a victim’s testimony of her substantial impairment that the accused knew or should have known the victim was substantially impaired to prove rape?
- To establish that the victim was substantially impaired, and the accused knew she was impaired, can the prosecutor present only evidence from the victim, and not any other witnesses?
BACKGROUND:
In February 2010, a 32-year-old woman identified as S.G. was managing two restaurants in Cleveland. She closed the two operations around midnight, went home and changed her clothes, then drove to a local bar/restaurant. Inside a Cleveland West Park neighborhood bar, the Third Place, she ordered a pizza to go and a vodka and tonic to drink while she waited. Within minutes, she was flanked by two men, who she said were about her same age and aggressively hitting on her. One man she described as chubby with a beard, and the other as a slightly taller man wearing a dark hoodie with “dark features.” After taking a sip of her drink, S.G.’s memory of the night ends.
Hours later, S.G. awoke to the sound of a stranger’s voice. A good Samaritan found her in the parking lot of a KeyBank building about a mile and a half from Third Place and a mile from her home. Her jeans were unzipped, she felt vaginal soreness, had bruises on her arm and face, a cut lip, and was barefoot. The good Samaritan walked her home, where S.G. said she collapsed on her couch and slept for a few hours. She then called a friend and her mother, stating that she felt “clearly violated.”
Her friend urged her to go to the hospital, and later that afternoon, she agreed. At Fairview Hospital, a certified sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) performed a sexual assault exam. A Cleveland police officer was present, but S.G. refused to speak with police and said she “did not want to go to court.” Although S.G. stated she had a few vodka and tonics that night and blacked out, the SANE nurse didn’t conduct a toxicology screen to determine the amount of alcohol in her system or whether she had been drugged.
The officer collected the sexual assault exam kit and sent it to a crime lab. The lab detected semen from a swab and extracted DNA samples. The DNA didn’t match any DNA in a national database.
Arrest Made 10 Years Later
S.G. said she hadn’t heard from the police for 10 years, even though the police maintained they had called her after the incident. In 2020, a Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office investigator contacted her and obtained a statement about the 2010 incident. He also showed her a lineup of suspects, and she pointed to three or four men who could have been the potential perpetrator. The investigator retired, and a year later, another investigator took up the case and used updated DNA technology to track down a potential suspect. The investigator obtained new DNA from Robin McClain, which matched the DNA from S.G.’s 2010 rape kit.
The investigator interviewed McClain, who denied knowing S.G. In 2010, he was 21 and said he no longer drank at bars. While he was familiar with Third Place, he said he had never been in the bar. He told the investigator his DNA wouldn’t be found on S.G. However, McClain’s partner, who was his best friend in 2010, said that she, McClain, and a circle of friends would frequently drink in the West Park area and meet at a coffee shop, where they would stay until the early morning hours to sober up. The coffee shop is three storefronts away from the KeyBank where S.G. woke up barefoot in the snow.
McClain was charged with forcible rape and rape based on S.G.’s substantial impairment. A Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court jury found him not guilty of forcible rape, but guilty of substantial impairment rape. He was sentenced to six years in prison.
McClain appealed his conviction to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision, the Eighth District vacated McClain’s conviction. The appeals court ruled that substantial impairment rape, explained in R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), required the prosecution to prove both that S.G. was substantially impaired and that McClain knew or had reason to know she was substantially impaired and couldn’t consent to sexual conduct. The appeals court found the prosecutors didn’t prove McClain knew S.G. was substantially impaired.
The prosecutor’s office appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which agreed to hear the case.
Sufficient Evidence Presented to Convict Suspect, Prosecutor Asserts
The prosecutor’s office argues the Eighth District majority overstepped its authority and substituted its judgment for the jury. In this case, the prosecutor explains it only needed to prove that sufficient evidence was presented to the jury to prove the crime. Sufficiency is measured by determining whether the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution would allow any reasonable jury to have found the proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the crime.
To convict McClain of substantial impairment rape under R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), the prosecutor notes it was required to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that McClain engaged in sexual conduct with S.G. The prosecution must also prove that S.G.’s ability to resist, or to consent, was substantially impaired by either a physical condition, mental condition, or advanced age. Finally, prosecutors had to prove McClain knew or had reasonable cause to believe that S.G.’s ability to resist or consent was substantially impaired.
The prosecutor argues the DNA evidence proved the two had sex, and S.G.’s testimony of her blackout would permit a jury to infer that she didn’t consent to sex with McClain. The bruises and cuts on her body were consistent with a fall or being assaulted, the prosecutor notes. A jury could infer that if S.G. had blacked out or was unconscious during that time, McClain would be aware of her condition and would know she was unable to consent to sex, the prosecutor reasons. This meets all the elements of the crime, the office concludes.
The prosecutor objects to the Eighth District’s ruling that more evidence was necessary to prove McClain was aware of S.G.’s condition. The appeals court pointed to prior decisions where substantial impairment was proven by the victim stumbling, slurring words, or being unconscious. The prosecutor argues proof of behavior like stumbling isn’t necessarily needed, and is especially unfair to victims who have been drugged by perpetrators and who are unaware of their impairment. The law doesn’t require additional evidence of impairment, such as a toxicology report, video evidence, medical reports, or additional witnesses, the office asserts.
Other types of sexual assault crimes do require information to corroborate the victim’s testimony, the prosecutor notes. Had the General Assembly intended for R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c) to require additional evidence, it could have added it to the law as it has in other criminal statutes, the office asserts.
The prosecutor maintains that S.G.’s testimony, along with McClain’s misleading statements to the investigator, and the other testimony about McClain’s frequency of visiting bars at the time, and the location of S.G. when she was found, provided the jury with enough evidence to reasonably conclude that McClain assaulted S.G. and was aware of her impairment at the time. The Eighth District’s majority did its own assessment of the evidence and concluded differently, the prosecutor notes. But that isn’t the appeals court’s role, the office argues. Instead, the Eighth District failed to accept that a reasonable jury, having heard all the evidence, found sufficient evidence to convict McClain, the prosecutor concludes.
Not Enough Evidence Provided to Convict, Accused Argues
McClain argues the prosecutor wants to eliminate the requirement of proof that a defendant knows or should have known the alleged victim was substantially impaired. He asserts the prosecution wants the Supreme Court to rule that as long as the alleged victim claims to have no memory of the sexual encounter, then the accused must have or should have known the alleged victim was substantially impaired.
McClain maintains his testimony is consistent with his claim that he and S.G. had consensual sex and that 12 years later, neither remembers the other. He notes he would have been 21 at the time and that S.G. testified the men at the bar were near her age, in their early 30s. All that S.G. testified to is that she blacked out, never identified McClain as anyone she encountered, and couldn’t recall or describe how she acted when she blacked out, he notes. McClain argued at his trial that the jury was presented with medical evidence proving that some people, when blacked out, function as if they were fully aware of their activities and surroundings. Nothing presented to the jury indicated how McClain would know if S.G. was impaired or not, but that element is required to convict him of substantial impairment rape.
McClain notes that the SANE nurse didn’t do a toxicology report, and there is no evidence that S.G. had been drugged. No one observed him with S.G., and nothing except S.G.’s testimony proved her state of impairment, he argues. He also notes that the prosecutor didn’t charge him with a type of rape that alleges he drugged S.G. A jury could infer from S.G.’s testimony that she blacked out and was substantially impaired, but that doesn’t give the jury the right to then infer that McClain was aware that she was impaired. The prosecution needed to provide evidence that McClain knew she was substantially impaired, and as the Eighth District majority found, they didn’t. He argues the appeals correctly assessed the case and properly vacated his conviction.– Dan Trevas
Docket entries, memoranda, briefs (including amicus briefs), and other information about this case may be accessed through the case docket.
Contacts
Representing the State of Ohio from the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office: Sarah Hutnik, shutnik@prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us
Representing Robin McClain from the Cuyahoga County Public Defender’s Office: Cullen Sweeney, csweeney@cuyahogacounty.us
These informal previews are prepared by the Supreme Court's Office of Public Information to provide the news media and other interested persons with a brief overview of the legal issues and arguments advanced by the parties in upcoming cases scheduled for oral argument. The previews are not part of the case record, and are not considered by the Court during its deliberations.
Parties interested in receiving additional information are encouraged to review the case file available in the Supreme Court Clerk's Office (614.387.9530), or to contact counsel of record.