State v. Bryan11/18/2004
Gerald Bryan appeals from an order denying a motion to suppress evidence presented supporting the charges of failure to comply with orders, in violation of R.C. 2921.331, and driving under the influence, in violation of R.C. 4511.19. After a review of the record and arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court for the reasons set forth below.
{ } On September 7, 2003, appellant engaged North Royalton police in a high-speed chase, which ended when the police abandoned the pursuit for safety reasons. A dispatch was issued to neighboring cities, giving a description of the vehicle and a temporary tag license number.
{ } Officer Bartlett of the Strongsville police received the dispatch and learned that the appellant resided in Strongsville. When the officer went to investigate, he came upon a car matching the description and license number issued in the dispatch and appellant leaning up against the car. After calling for back-up, Officer Bartlett engaged the appellant in conversation until other officers arrived. Officer Breyley of North Royalton then arrived, identified appellant's car as the one he had been pursuing, and appellant was arrested.
{ } Appellant presents one assignment of error in this appeal.
{ } "I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION WHEN IT FAILED TO SUPPRESS THE IDENTIFICATION AS THE FRUIT OF AN ILLEGAL DETENTION."
{ } Appellant argues that his motion to suppress was improperly denied because Strongsville police officers had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he was detained. In reviewing a motion to suppress, this court adheres to the standard of review as articulated in State v. Curry: "In a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate witness credibility. State v. Clay (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 250. A reviewing court is bound to accept those findings of fact if supported by competent, credible evidence. See State v. Schiebel (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 71. However, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, it must be determined independently whether, as a matter of law, the facts meet the appropriate legal standard. State v. Claytor (1993), 85 Ohio App.3d 623, 627." State v. Curry, (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 93 at 96.
{ } Pursuant to Florida v. Royer (1982), 460 U.S. 491, 501-507, 75 L.Ed.2d 229, 103 S.Ct. 1319, there are three types of police-citizen contacts in which Fourth Amendment guarantees are implicated: consensual encounter, investigatory stop, and an arrest. In State v. Scott (Aug. 5, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 74352, at 7-9, this court stated:
{ } "Encounters are consensual where the police merely approach a person in a public place, engage the person in conversation and request information, and the person is free to answer or walk away. United States v. Mendenhall (1980), 446 U.S. 544, 553, 64 L.Ed.2d 497, 100 S.Ct. 1870. The request to examine a person's identification does not make an encounter nonconsensual. Florida v. Rodriguez (1984), 469 U.S. 1, 4-6, 83 L.Ed.2d 165, 105 S.Ct. 308. Nor does the request to search a person's belongings. Florida v. Bostick (1991), 501 U.S. 429, 115 L.Ed.2d 389, 111 S.Ct. 2382. The Fourth Amendment guarantees are not implicated in such an encounter unless the police officers have by either physical force or show of authority restrained the person's liberty so that a reasonable person would not feel free to decline the officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 566. Moreover, law enforcement officers d
Page 1 2 3 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|