OH3: Def’s motion to determine legality of arrest never sought to suppress anything and wasn’t appealable

Defendant’s motion to determine the legality of his arrest was not even called a motion to suppress. It was not even appealable as it was framed. “[T]he motion filed by Sanchez on October 28, 2020, was not captioned a ‘motion to suppress’ and, more importantly, the motion did not challenge the lawfulness of Sanchez’s arrest on constitutional grounds, nor did the motion seek the exclusion of any evidence. For those reasons, we cannot construe that motion as a suppression motion from which an appeal could be taken following the no contest plea in this case.” State v. Sanchez, 2023-Ohio-1436, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 1431 (3d Dist. May 1, 2023).

Defendant showed a material question of fact for a hearing on his motion to suppress. Remanded. United States v. Brown, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 10529 (3d Cir. May 1, 2023).*

Based on the totality of circumstances, the experience of the parole officer and his knowledge of defendant’s criminal history with weapons and potential violence along with defendant’s distancing himself from a backpack justified its parole search. United States v. Gaston, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75025 (N.D. Iowa Apr. 6, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Motion to suppress, Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.