Defendant’s motion to suppress should not have been granted for his failure to plead a violation of the constitution or law. State v. Leatherwood, 2020-Ohio-3012, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1956 (9th Dist. May 20, 2020):
[*P12] In this case, Mr. Leatherwood’s motion to suppress alleged, in vague terms, a lack of reasonable suspicion, but it is unclear to what alleged action on the part of law enforcement the motion was directed. Mr. Leatherwood did not identify any constitutional violation that resulted from police conduct. See Hobbs, 133 Ohio St.3d 43, 2012-Ohio-3886, at ¶ 21, 975 N.E.2d 965. Specifically, he did not maintain that the potential “identification testimony * * * was illegally obtained.” See Crim.R. 12(C)(3). Mr. Leatherwood did not request the exclusion of any evidence seized by law enforcement as a result of acting in reliance upon the information provided by the 911 caller, and his motion to suppress did not challenge the adequacy of the warrant that led to his arrest or point to any evidence seized as a result of its execution. Indeed, it appears that Mr. Leatherwood’s goal was not the suppression of any evidence gained as the result of an alleged constitutional violation, but the exclusion of testimony related to the trooper’s identification of him as the individual who fled when the troopers approached. See generally Szafranski at ¶ 44-52; Conyer at ¶ 11-20; Hart at ¶ 32-36.
[*P13] Under these circumstances, when no constitutional violation has been alleged or demonstrated, we cannot agree that suppression was appropriate. Accordingly, the State’s assignment of error is sustained.