733 N.E.2d 334 (Ohio 2000), 99 CRB 611, State v. Culver

Docket Nº:99 CRB 611, 99 TRC 5665.
Citation:733 N.E.2d 334, 106 Ohio Misc.2d 27, 2000-Ohio-492
Opinion Judge:ROBERT S. WYNN, Judge.
Party Name:The STATE v. CULVER. [*]
Attorney:Thomas L. Sartini, Ashtabula County Prosecuting Attorney, and Susan R. Thomas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff. Gessner & Platt Co., L.P.A., and George E. Gessner, for defendant.
Case Date:March 24, 2000
Court:County Court of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 334

733 N.E.2d 334 (Ohio 2000)

106 Ohio Misc.2d 27, 2000-Ohio-492

The STATE

v.

CULVER. *

Nos. 99 CRB 611, 99 TRC 5665.

Ashtabula County Court, of Ohio.

March 24, 2000.

[106 Ohio Misc.2d 28] Thomas L. Sartini, Ashtabula County Prosecuting Attorney, and Susan R. Thomas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for plaintiff.

Gessner & Platt Co., L.P.A., and George E. Gessner, Cortland, for defendant.

ROBERT S. WYNN, Judge.

In these cases defendant stands charged with possession of marijuana under Ohio Revised Code Section 2925.11(A), (C)(3), possession of drug paraphernalia under R.C. 2925.14(C)(1), and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1) and (3).

A timely waiver has been filed in these cases by the defense.

Defendant filed his motion to suppress in each case number on December 23, 1999. An identical motion was filed in each case number. A hearing upon the motions was scheduled and heard on March 6, 2000.

At the outset of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the arrest of defendant was a warrantless arrest. Further, the defense and the state agreed that the scope of the suppression motion and hearing is limited to the narrow issue of whether or not the officer made a valid traffic stop of defendant. Due to this agreement and stipulation to the evidence, the thrust of defendant's motion to suppress and this court's decision are confined to this narrow issue of the lawful propriety of the investigative detention of defendant--it is the initial stop phase of this scenario that is challenged by defendant's suppression motions.

Page 335

The court finds that Officer Blon did have a reasonable suspicion of the existence of illegal activity to justify a stop of defendant's motor vehicle. Blon had a reasonable factual basis from which to conclude that a juvenile was in the back seat of defendant's vehicle in violation of the Jefferson Village Code of Ordinances regarding curfew. Blon also observed defendant proceed forward through the intersection of Chestnut Street and Jefferson Street out of the left-turn-only lane.

Defendant's motions to suppress are overruled.

I

The court finds that on November 26, 1999, Officer Blon of the Jefferson Village Police Department was working an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift while in a marked cruiser. At about 2:20 a.m., his attention was drawn to a white 1995 [106 Ohio Misc.2d 29] Oldsmobile in the well-lit parking lot of Dairy Mart at the corner of Walnut Street and North Chestnut Street in the village of Jefferson, County of Ashtabula, and state of Ohio. Blon observed that one of the five persons in the Oldsmobile was an individual, James Bluhm, whom Blon knew to be a juvenile. Blon knew this because the Jefferson Village Police Department had had prior dealings with Bluhm as a juvenile in the recent past. Given the early morning hour, Blon further knew that as a juvenile Bluhm was...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP