State v. Good
| Decision Date | 09 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 2291,2291 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. GOOD, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
At a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, the state is not required to prove the factual basis for a radio broadcast which was the sole information acted upon by a police officer to make an investigative stop and subsequent arrest of a suspect.
Frank C. Oehl, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Craig R. Reynolds, Wooster, for appellant.
At approximately 11:30 p.m. on May 2, 1987, Sergeant Robert Merillat of the Wooster Police Department received a radio dispatch that a local drive-thru beverage store had called to report that a car containing several individuals had driven through, attempted to purchase alcoholic beverages, and left when asked for identification. A description and license plate number of the car were provided. Approximately one hour later, Sergeant Merillat observed a car matching the description. The officer stopped the car which was being driven by the defendant-appellant, Brian Good. Upon checking Good's driver's license, Merillat discovered that Good's license had been suspended. Good was cited and arrested pursuant to R.C. 4507.02; he was released on bond and pleaded not guilty.
Good made a motion to dismiss the charges which the trial court treated as a motion to suppress for lack of probable cause to stop or arrest. Sergeant Merillat was the only witness to testify for the state at the hearing on this motion. Upon cross-examination, Merillat testified that he acted solely on the information in the dispatch and was personally unaware of any of the circumstances which led up to it. After the state rested its case, Good moved for suppression on the ground that the prosecution failed to present evidence of a factual basis for the dispatch. The trial court denied the motion. Good then entered a plea of no contest; he was found guilty, fined $400, sentenced to ninety days in jail, and his driver's license was suspended for one year. Good now appeals.
The issue presented here is narrow in scope. We must decide whether the state is required, at a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Maumee v. Weisner
...itself, sufficient to justify the stop, regardless of the knowledge of the officer issuing the dispatch. See, e.g., State v. Good (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 174, 525 N.E.2d 527; State v. Janda (Apr. 14, 1993), Lorain App. No. 92CA005416, unreported, 1993 WL 120549. See, also, State v. Penn (Aug......
-
State v. Roger Dale Pettry, 90-LW-2814
... ... broadcast has the requisite knowledge to establish the ... justification for the detention. See also State v ... Hill (1981), 3 Ohio App. 3d 10; State v. Fultz ... (1968), 13 Ohio St. 2d 79; but see State v. Good ... (1987), 37 Ohio App. 3d 174, where the Ninth District Court ... of Appeals held, in apparent contravention to the holdings of ... the United States Supreme Court in Whiteley and ... Hensley, that the state is not required to prove the ... factual basis for a ... ...
-
State v. William Smith
... ... contends that Detective Tecco lacked probable cause for the ... search of the automobile. We disagree ... The ... police received a radio broadcast that a late model, ... dark-colored Firebird was involved in a shooting. See ... State v. Good (1987), 37 Ohio App. 3d 174, ... 525 N.E. 2d 527. It was after 1:00 a.m. in a high drug area ... At such time, there were few automobiles on the street ... Within minutes of receiving such radio report, Detective ... Tecco observed a late model, dark-colored Camaro only a ... ...
-
State of Ohio
... ... suppress evidence illegally obtained, both counsel and the ... trial court treated it as a motion to suppress evidence ... throughout the proceedings. Thus, State v ... F.O.E. Aerie 2295 (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 53, is ... inapplicable. See State v. Good (1987), 37 ... Ohio App. 3d 174 ... ...