{"id":8892,"date":"2013-06-16T13:04:12","date_gmt":"2013-06-16T13:04:12","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-06-16T13:04:12","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8892","title":{"rendered":"OH9 grants rare reversal of grant of motion to suppress based on factfinding having no support in record"},"content":{"rendered":"

Trial court\u2019s findings suppressing the evidence were not supported by the record. It held there was \u201cnot one shred of evidence\u201d from which an officer could apply the emergency exception. That was incorrect, and the case is remanded to reweigh the evidence. State v. Hendrix<\/a>, 2013 Ohio 2430, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 2367 (9th Dist. June 12, 2013):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

[*P14] “This Court must only accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence.” State v. Figueroa, 9th Dist. No. 09CA009612, 2010 Ohio 189, \u00b6 20. The trial court’s factual findings here are not supported by competent, credible evidence. As set forth above, the court’s findings contain several factual inaccuracies. Moreover, we cannot conclude that the factual inaccuracies had no impact upon the court’s ultimate decision. The trial court’s conclusion was to grant the motion to suppress because there was “not one shred of evidence” from which a reasonable officer could have concluded that someone was in need of assistance or that a crime was being committed. The court’s conclusion might have been otherwise if based upon factually accurate findings. In any event, this Court “cannot address the court’s application of the law, as its factual findings are not supported by competent, credible evidence.” Liscoe, 2011 Ohio 1054, at \u00b6 14.<\/p>\n

[*P15] Because the evidence introduced at the suppression hearing does not support the trial court’s findings, we must conclude that the court erred by granting Hendrix and Scott’s motion to suppress. Thus, the State’s sole assignment of error is sustained on that basis and the matter is remanded to the trial court for a new suppression hearing.<\/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-8892","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8892","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=8892"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8892\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}