Statements made by suspect at scene should not have been supressed because were not result of interrogation

The Ohio Supreme Court's new Court News Ohio service yesterday reported a Second District Court of Appeals' decision that "statements made by a Dayton man arrested for drug possession were admissible and should not have been suppressed by the trial court because they were not the result of police interrogation."

After arresting & placing suspect in back of cruiser, officers field tested and confirmed the substance retrieved was crack cocaine while standing in the front of their car. The Court News summary said "before they had informed the suspect of his Miranda rights, he had made 'an excited utterance' attesting to the fact that he knew he had been standing over crack cocaine and further incriminating statements. Charged with possession of crack cocaine, suspect pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to suppress, which the trial court granted."

"In a unanimous decision authored by Judge Penelope R. Cunningham, sitting by assignment from the First District Court of Appeals, the appeals court said the trial court 'reasonably concluded that the suspect was in custody when he made his statements. However, the trial court erred in concluding that those statements resulted from an interrogation, because the officers did not engage in conduct that was likely to elicit a response.'"

State v. Moody, 2012-Ohio-3390