OH7: Motion to suppress that overalleged every conceivable ground was properly denied without a hearing

A general motion to suppress that itemized every possible failure of the officer in an OVI case was insufficient to put the state on notice as to what the issue was and was properly denied. State v. Kale, 2009 Ohio 6530, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5454 (7th Dist. December 9, 2009).*

[*P18] Appellant employed the “throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks” approach to his motion. The prosecution asserted at the hearing, without objection or denial by appellant’s counsel, that appellant’s counsel has used this identical boilerplate motion in at least two other cases. (Oct. 31, Tr. 8). If in fact counsel uses the identical motion in other OVI cases, then there is no way that he is alleging facts specific to the circumstances at hand. A motion to suppress must “be more than a mere fishing expedition.” Gozdan, 7th Dist. No. 03-CA-792, 2004 Ohio 3209 at P9.

[*P19] Appellant did not assert facts with sufficient particularity so as to put the prosecution on notice and to shift the burden to the state. Accordingly, appellant’s first assignment of error is without merit.

The third party consented to recording of defendant’s telephone call when he was in Pennsylvania and the second party was in California and the third party was in Ohio. Ohio law would be applied and the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit it. State v. Dew, 2009 Ohio 6537, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5461 (7th Dist. December 1, 2009).*

Trial court’s finding of consent is supported by the evidence, so it is affirmed. State v. Adams, 2009 Ohio 6491, 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 5449 (4th Dis. December 8, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.