Ohio courts on motions to suppress

We thought this a good idea after one of our patrons brought up the general topic last week and want to share it with our readers.

The decision on a motion to suppress can be critical to the outcome of a criminal case. They must set forth allegations of relevant factual issues with definiteness, clarity, and specificity; and those based on general and conclusory allegations or conjecture are insufficient. But Ohio has gone further, and this is where our patron wanted to double-check everything.

In 1994, the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Shindler (70 O St3d 54 ) undertook the determination of the extent to which a motion to suppress evidence had to set forth its legal and factual basis in order to require a hearing, stressing the phrase “sufficient particularity to place the prosecutor and court on notice of the issues to be decided.”

In 1997, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals emphasized discovery, saying “ in order to support a motion to suppress, with particular facts that would place the state on notice of the areas to be challenged, a defendant must first complete due and diligent discovery on all issues which he or she intends to challenge.” [ See State v. Neuhoff, 119 O App3d. 501, 695 NE2d 825]. In 2004, the Twelfth Appellate District held that in order to require the state to respond specifically & particularly to issues in a motion, an accused has to raise issues that can be supported by facts, either known or discovered.” [ State v. Embry,2004 Ohio 6324 ].

Citing all three of the above cases, the our own First District Court of Appeals last June 8th., in City of Norwood v. Kahn, held that although a defendant met his burden of putting the state and trial court on notice of the issues for the purpose of a suppression hearing, he conducted no discovery on the issues challenged such that he likely had no factual support for the allegations beyond his own observations; the state showing general evidence of its compliance with the regulations supports the trial court’s denying of a motion to suppress.