 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re v. S.11/30/2005
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, V.S., Jr., a minor, appeals the decision of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, denying his motion to suppress. We affirm the decision of the juvenile court.
{ } On October 22, close to midnight, University of Akron Police Officer, Aaron Burnette, pulled over the vehicle that Defendant was driving. Defendant thereafter was charged in delinquent case number 04-11-5250 with one count of underage consumption of alcohol, a violation of R.C. 4301.69, and one count of curfew violation, under Akron City Ordinance 139.06. In traffic case number 04-602799, Defendant was charged with one count of OVI, under R.C. 4511.19A(1)(a), prohibited blood alcohol content under R.C. 4511.19(B)(3), seat belt violation under R.C. 4513.263, and failure to travel within marked lanes, in violation of R.C. 4511.33.
{ } Defendant filed a motion to suppress on December 1, 2004, alleging that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and to arrest him, and that the results of his breathalyzer test should be suppressed. The juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing on January 25, 2005, and thereafter, on February 18, 2005, overruled Defendant's motion to suppress.
{ } Defendant then pled no contest to operating under the influence, prohibited blood content, failure to drive within marked lanes and curfew violation. Defendant was sentenced to six months license suspension, alcohol assessment, and a fine and costs. Defendant also pled no contest to underage consumption and a curfew violation. The juvenile court sentenced Defendant to a substance abuse evaluation and to follow through with all recommendations in his traffic case. Defendant now asserts three assignments of error for our review. To facilitate ease of discussion, we will consider Defendant's assignments of error together.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
"The trial court erred in finding that there existed reasonable suspicion to justify the stop of the motor vehicle driven by [Defendant]."
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
"The trial court erred in finding that probable cause existed to arrest [Defendant] for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in violation of [R.C.] 4511.19(A)(1)(a)."
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
"The trial court erred in finding that the breathalyzer test should not have been suppressed as a result of the state of Ohio denying [Defendant] the right to call his parents."
{ } In each of his three assignments of error, Defendant argues that the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the police lacked a reasonable ground to stop him and did not have probable cause to arrest him. Defendant also claims that the evidence and information seized from him was in violation of his constitutional rights, and should have been suppressed.
{ } The review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of fact and law for an appellate court. State v. Yeager, 9th Dist. Nos. 21091, 21112, and 21120, 2003-Ohio-1808, at , citing State v. Long (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 332. This court "'is bound to accept factual determinations of the trial court made during the suppression hearing so long as they are supported by competent and credible evidence.'" State v. Robinson (Oct. 25, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 19905, at 5, quoting State v. Searls (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 739, 741. However, an appellate court reviews de novo the trial court's application of the law to those
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|