639 N.E.2d 1268 (Ohio Co. 1993), 93 TRC 3390, State v. Brown
|Docket Nº:||93 TRC 3390AB.|
|Citation:||639 N.E.2d 1268, 64 Ohio Misc.2d 41|
|Opinion Judge:||JEFFREY E. FROELICH, Judge.|
|Party Name:||The STATE of Ohio v. BROWN. [*]|
|Attorney:||Gregory Spears, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff. William Jared Monroe, Dayton, for defendant Clifford A. Brown.|
|Case Date:||August 10, 1993|
|Court:||County Court of Ohio|
The defendant has filed a motion to suppress based on the following stipulated facts. The intersection of Diamond Mill Road and Route 35 (West Third Street) is the confluence of the boundaries of four separate townships. The northeast quadrant is Madison Township, the southeast is Jefferson Township, the southwest is Jackson Township, and the northwest is Perry Township. On April 30, 1993, a Perry Township police officer was proceeding in a marked cruiser and in [64 Ohio Misc.2d 42] uniform south on Diamond Mill Road, north of Route 35, thereby placing himself within Perry Township.
At that time and place, the officer witnessed the defendant eastbound on Route 35 run the red light at the intersection of Diamond Mill Road and Route 35; since the defendant was eastbound, he was on the south side of the centerline, therefore within Jackson Township at the time he violated R.C. 4511.12 by running the red light.
The defendant proceeded through the intersection, thereby placing himself within Jefferson Township. The officer turned left (or east) onto Route 35, therefore placing him also within Jefferson Township. The defendant then turned into his home driveway, located on Route 35 in Jefferson Township, and the officer pulled in behind him. The officer then proceeded to interview the defendant, noticed an odor of alcohol and another indicia of driving under the influence, and performed certain field sobriety tests. The defendant then was transported to the Perry Township Police Department, where he gave a urine sample.
The defendant has moved to suppress anything which the officer observed, including coordination tests, statements, results of the alcohol test, etc. The defendant argues (and it is stipulated and the court so finds) that he was never in Perry Township and therefore violated no laws within Perry Township. The defendant argues therefore that the officer was without authority to stop him and that therefore any fruits of this stop cannot be admitted against him. The prosecution argues that the officer did have statutory authority to stop the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP