{"id":8166,"date":"2012-12-30T09:09:35","date_gmt":"2012-12-31T00:01:43","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-12-30T09:09:35","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8166","title":{"rendered":"Two Ohio cases on the general motion to suppress: One bad, one good"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant\u2019s claim that his teenage son was not able to legitimately consent to a police entry into the house was not in the motion to suppress nor specifically raised at the hearing, so it is waived. State v. Preston<\/a>, 2012 Ohio 6176, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 5323 (12th Dist. December 28, 2012).<\/p>\n

While the \u201cmotion to suppress was the sort of \u2018shotgun,\u2019 unfocused motion that courts disfavor,\u201d the state was still on notice as to the issue. Defendant prevailed on the motion to suppress, and it\u2019s affirmed. \u201c[T]his judgment entry is not an opinion of the court.\u201d State v. Gottesman, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 5325 (1st Dist. December 26, 2012):<\/p>\n

While we agree that Gottesman’s motion to suppress was the sort of “shotgun,” unfocused motion that courts disfavor, we need not reach the issue of whether it was specific enough. The record indicates that the state was aware that Gottesman was raising the issue of probable cause to arrest. Further, without the testimony of the arresting officer, the state could not prove that the officer had had probable cause to arrest Gottesman, and numerous other issues related to the search and seizure. The trial court had little choice but to grant the motion to suppress.<\/p>\n

The state further argues that Gottesman failed to meet his initial burden of showing that he was arrested without a warrant. See Xenia at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. But this court has stated that while Xenia places the burden on the defendant to show the absence of a warrant, “this requirement should not be given a hypertechnical construction.” State v. Petrosky, 1st Dist. Nos. C-900264 and C-900265, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 1257, *5 (Mar. 27, 1991). The record as a whole shows that the arresting officer did not have a warrant to arrest Gottesman. See id. at *5-6.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8166","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}