 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Robinson3/29/2004
Appellant Andrew Scott Robinson appeals the decision of the Canton Municipal Court that denied his motion to suppress. The following facts give rise to this appeal.
On March 22, 2003, Jeffrey Yarian, an enforcement agent with the Ohio Department of Public Safety, was working undercover, at Rumours Café, investigating complaints that persons were being served alcohol beyond the point of intoxication. Yarian and his co-worker observed appellant, at the bar, and subsequently saw him leave the bar and enter his vehicle. Once appellant entered his vehicle, the agents called the Stark County Sheriff's Department.
When appellant began to move his vehicle, the agents surrounded appellant's vehicle with their own vehicles, and activated their lights and sirens. The agents approached appellant's vehicle displaying their badges. Upon arriving at the scene, Deputy Lowe of the Sheriff's Department administered various field sobriety tests. Appellant could not perform the field sobriety tests and refused a breathalyzer test. On the HGN test appellant displayed six clues indicating intoxication. Deputy Lowe also observed a strong odor of alcohol about appellant's person.
Deputy Lowe charged appellant with one count of driving under the influence of alcohol. On May 1, 2003, appellant filed a motion to suppress. Appellant made several arguments in support of his motion, including the argument that the enforcement agents did not have the authority to stop him. The trial court overruled appellant's motion on May 15, 2003.
Subsequently, appellant entered a plea of no contest. The trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to a mandatory term of three days at the Drivers Intervention Program with the remainder of the time suspended.
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and sets forth the following assignment of error for our consideration:
"I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS."
I.
In his sole assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because the agents did not have the authority to stop him. We disagree.
There are three methods that may be used, on appeal, to challenge a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's findings of fact. In reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether said findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19; State v. Klein (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 485; State v. Guysinger (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 592.
Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In that case, an appellate court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. State v. Williams (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 37.
Finally, assuming the trial court's findings of fact are not against the manifest weight of the evidence and it has properly identified the law to be applied, an appellant may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issue raised in the motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State v. Curry (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 93; State v. Claytor (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 623; Guysinger, supra.
In the case sub judice, appellant contends the trial court incorrectly decided the issue of whether the enforcement agents had the
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|