 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Burgess11/7/2001
JUDGMENT: Reversed
Appellant William Burgess appeals the decision of the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas that denied his motions to suppress evidence seized following an alleged improper detention of his vehicle and alleged improper questioning without Miranda warnings. The following facts give rise to this appeal. On June 3, 2000, Trooper Nikita Hendrix of the Ohio State Highway Patrol passed appellant's vehicle and observed that appellant's vehicle, a 1987 Honda Accord, did not have a front license plate. Trooper Hendrix turned his cruiser and began following appellant's vehicle. Trooper Hendrix did not observe a rear license plate or a thirty-day tag displayed. Trooper Hendrix subsequently stopped appellant's vehicle due to appellant's failure to display license plates or a thirty-day tag. When Trooper Hendrix was within six feet of appellant's vehicle, he noticed a thirty-day tag in the middle upper part of the back window. Trooper Hendrix continued to approach appellant's vehicle and advised appellant that he stopped him for improperly displaying the thirty-day tag. Trooper Hendrix then requested appellant's operator's license and vehicle registration, as well as identification from passengers in the vehicle. Trooper Hendrix asked appellant to accompany him to his cruiser. After they were seated in Trooper Hendrix's cruiser, Trooper Hendrix smelled the odor of burnt marihuana on appellant's person. Trooper Hendrix began questioning appellant about any knowledge he may have of drugs in his vehicle. Trooper Hendrix questioned appellant without providing Miranda warnings. Only after Trooper Hendrix continued to question appellant did appellant finally admit to having drugs in his vehicle. Appellant went to his vehicle and retrieved the marihuana. Trooper Hendrix continued to question appellant about drugs in the vehicle and appellant incriminated himself with regard to psychedelic mushrooms seized from his vehicle. On July 12, 2000, the Holmes County Grand Jury indicated appellant for one count of aggravated possession of drugs. Appellant filed motions to suppress on July 26, 2000 and August 2, 2000. On September 28, 2000, the trial court denied appellant's motions. Appellant entered a no contest plea on November 28, 2000, and the trial court sentenced him to community control sanctions. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and sets forth the following assignments of error for our consideration:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE ARRESTING OFFICER HAD GROUNDS TO DETAIN THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AFTER THE ARRESTING OFFICER HAD OBSERVED A TEMPORARY VEHICLE REGISTRATION TAG AFFIXED IN THE REAR WINDOW OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S VEHICLE WHICH COMPLIED WITH OHIO LAW.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AS A MATTER OF LAW, WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT WHILE THE OFFICER WAS INTERROGATING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WHILE HE WAS SEATED IN THE OFFICER'S POLICE VEHICLE.
I.
Appellant contends, in his First Assignment of Error, that the trial court erred when it found that Trooper Hendrix had grounds to detain him after Trooper Hendrix observed the thirty-day tag displayed in the rear window of his vehicle. We agree. The trial court relied upon the case of State v. Eddy (Dec. 7, 1999), Ashland App. No. 99-COA-01316, unreported, in concluding that Trooper Hendrix properly detained appellant's vehicle after he observed the thirty-day tag displayed in the rear window of appellant's vehicle. Appellant argues, on appeal, that the trial court erred when it relied upon the Eddy case as it is distinguishable from the case sub judice. In reviewing this type of
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|