{"id":12282,"date":"2014-06-27T06:57:08","date_gmt":"2014-06-27T11:57:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=12282"},"modified":"2014-06-27T06:57:08","modified_gmt":"2014-06-27T11:57:08","slug":"oh10-suppression-motion-arguing-stop-wasnt-valid-doesnt-include-whether-frisk-was-reasonable-waived-on-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=12282","title":{"rendered":"OH10: Suppression motion arguing stop wasn’t valid doesn’t include whether frisk was reasonable; waived on appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"

The suppression argument that the stop was invalid doesn\u2019t raise the issue of whether the frisk of defendant\u2019s person was reasonable. Therefore, the frisk issue isn\u2019t before the appeals court. Defendant even objected to testimony about the frisk. [\u00b6 10] State v. Oden<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-2752, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 2695 (9th Dist. June 25, 2014).<\/p>\n

Generally, when the paperwork is completed, the stop should be over, but not always. Here, 24 minutes was not unreasonable. \u201cThe District Court credited the testimony given by the police officer at the suppression hearing and concluded that, under the circumstances, 24 minutes was a reasonable duration for the traffic stop. Specifically, the court found, based on the officer’s testimony, that much of that time was spent gathering and re-verifying information from the car’s occupants, running driver’s license and warrant checks, and writing a citation using a computer system and statute the officer was unfamiliar with. Accepting the version of facts adopted by the court, we cannot say that the court erred in concluding that the duration of the stop here was reasonable and constitutional. Accordingly, Moore’s convictions are affirmed.\u201d [Sounds like it\u2019s crediting a question of law, not a question of fact.] United States v. Moore<\/a>, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12010 (11th Cir. June 26, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The suppression argument that the stop was invalid doesn\u2019t raise the issue of whether the frisk of defendant\u2019s person was reasonable. Therefore, the frisk issue isn\u2019t before the appeals court. Defendant even objected to testimony about the frisk. [\u00b6 10] … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reasonable-suspicion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12282"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12282\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12283,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12282\/revisions\/12283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}