{"id":29317,"date":"2017-09-19T08:08:47","date_gmt":"2017-09-19T13:08:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=29317"},"modified":"2017-09-19T08:12:43","modified_gmt":"2017-09-19T13:12:43","slug":"oh2-no-record-of-suppression-hearing-brought-up-means-no-appellate-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=29317","title":{"rendered":"OH2: No record of suppression hearing brought up means no appellate review"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The trial court\u2019s denial of the motion to suppress couldn\u2019t be considered on appeal because the record of the hearing was never filed for the appeal. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/2\/2017\/2017-Ohio-7641.pdf\">State v. Tscheiner<\/a>, 2017-Ohio-7641, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3962 (2d Dist. Sept. 15, 2017).<\/p>\n<p>Defendant\u2019s stop for speeding was unrebutted, and, thus, justified. United States v. Anderson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150465 (D.Ariz. Sept. 15, 2017).*<\/p>\n<p>The trial court found that the stop was justified under the community caretaking function, but the supreme court finds that there was no \u201cstop\u201d and defendant was technically free to go. There were patrol cars on the side of the road and defendant stopped voluntarily. The officer subjectively intended to stop defendant, but defendant objectively stopped on his own. \u201cBecause no seizure occurred at the commencement of the encounter, it was not necessary to resort to the community caretaking exception. Although the lower courts began down the wrong path, they reached the correct result.\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nebraska.gov\/apps-courts-epub\/public\/viewAdvanced?docId=N00005566PUB\">State v. Rivera<\/a>, 297 Neb. 709, 2017 Neb. LEXIS 161 (Sept. 15, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The trial court\u2019s denial of the motion to suppress couldn\u2019t be considered on appeal because the record of the hearing was never filed for the appeal. State v. Tscheiner, 2017-Ohio-7641, 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 3962 (2d Dist. Sept. 15, 2017). &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=29317\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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":[104,74],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29317","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-burden-of-pleading","category-community-caretaking-function"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29317","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=29317"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29317\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29322,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29317\/revisions\/29322"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=29317"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=29317"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=29317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}