“In his motion to suppress, he asserted only that he was ‘associated’ with the truck. We find an ‘association’ with the vehicle gives no greater rights than a mere passenger. Therefore, we agree with the state that appellant could not assert his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search of the truck.” State v. Tilman, 2017-Ohio-2908, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 1948 (6th Dist. May 19, 2017).
The trial court’s findings that the officer could not have seen what he claimed to have seen is not supported by the record, and the grant of the motion to suppress is reversed. State v. Essad, 2017-Ohio-2913, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 1945 (9th Dist. May 22, 2017).*