 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lawson3/19/2003
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
Defendant-Appellant Troy L. Lawson has appealed from an order of the Cuyahoga Falls Municipal Court that denied his motion to suppress evidence and found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. This Court affirms.
I.
On April 6, 2002, at approximately 12:10 a.m., Appellant entered a BP gas station in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. Mark Starcher, an attendant working at the gas station at that time, noticed that Appellant was staggering as he walked and that he was slow in opening his wallet and counting his money for the purchase of two cans of Fix-a-Flat tire sealant. Mr. Starcher also observed a pick-up truck with severely damaged passenger side tires parked in the gas station's parking lot.
Based on his observations, Mr. Starcher formed a belief that Appellant was intoxicated and called police to report a possible individual under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Starcher identified himself, gave the address of the gas station, and described the pick-up truck. Officers Hawley and Shover of the Cuyahoga Falls Police Department responded to the call, and found Appellant and the pick-up truck at the BP station.
Appellant was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1). Appellant subsequently filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized against him, contending that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. Appellant also filed a memorandum of supplemental authority. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied Appellant's motion to suppress, holding that the police officers did not stop Appellant, but merely approached him in the parking lot. Appellant subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to suppress. The trial court never expressly ruled on the motion to reconsider, and we therefore presume that the court denied it. State ex rel. The V Cos. v. Marshall (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 467, 469.
Appellant thereafter entered a plea of no contest and was found guilty of the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Appellant has timely appealed from the order denying his motion to suppress, asserting two assignments of error which we have consolidated to facilitate review.
II. Assignment of Error Number One
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS BASED ON ITS CONCLUSION THAT APPELLANT NEVER WAS 'SEIZED' BY THE POLICE."
Assignment of Error Number Two
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING [APPELLANT'S] MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE THE POLICE OBTAINED EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM BY SEIZING HIM EVEN THOUGH THE POLICE LACKED REASONABLE, ARTICULABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY."
An appellate court's review of a ruling on a motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Long (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 332. "In a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court assumes the role of trier of facts and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate the credibility of witnesses." State v. Hopfer (1996), 112 Ohio App.3d 521, 548, appeal not allowed (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1488, quoting State v. Venham (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 649, 653. Accordingly, " n appellate court must review the trial court's findings of historical fact only for clear error, giving due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by the trial court. The trial court's legal co
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|