ID: If a motion to suppress is untimely, at least show good cause for the delay

The trial court did not err in denying a motion to suppress as untimely without inquiring into possible good cause or excusable neglect for the delay where the defense offered nothing on that. Defendant stripping down and leaving his clothes on the side of the road was an abandonment where the defendant was asked where his clothes were and he did not know. State v. Porter, 2022 Ida. App. LEXIS 2 (Feb. 17, 2022).

“Trooper Lewis articulated several factors to support a reasonable belief that criminal activity could have been afoot at the time in question. First, Lewis noted that the vehicle was a rental car and in his experience, individuals who transport drugs commonly use rental cars to avoid detection. Additionally, Lewis observed that the vehicle in question (1) failed to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle that traveled in front of it, (2) slowed to 40 miles per hour while traveling in a 55-mile-per-hour zone, and (3) made an unexpected lane change. The totality of the circumstances, therefore, supports a finding that Lewis possessed reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot and probable cause that a traffic violation had occurred.” Not ineffective assistance of counsel to have not challenged the stop. State v. Whitehead, 2022-Ohio-479, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 414 (4th Dist. Feb. 11, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Motion to suppress, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.