Tag: Judith Ann Lanzinger

Ohio Supreme Court Rules on DUI Motion To Suppress Issue

00DUI Case Law, DUI Court ProcessTags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

DUI Motion To Suppress

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled on a DUI Motion to Suppress issue in State v. Codeluppi, 2012-Ohio-5812.

In August of 2011, Officer Ryan M. Young of the North Ridgeville Police Department stopped Ms. Codeluppi on Lorain Road for driving 53 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone.  When Officer Young walked to the driver’s window of Ms. Codeluppi’s car, he smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from the interior of the car. Following an investigation and administration of standardized field sobriety tests, the defendant was arrested for OVI.

In her motion to suppress, Ms. Codeluppi asserted that: the officer lacked sufficient reasonable grounds to effectuate a traffic stop and/or probable cause to arrest her, the Field Sobriety Tests were not conducted in substantial compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) Guidelines, and statements she made during the traffic stop were obtained in violation of her Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  Ms. Codeluppi also requested a hearing.

In its response, the State argued that Ms. Codeluppi’s DUI motion to suppress should be denied because, pursuant to Crim.R. 47, it failed to state with particularity the respects in which Officer Young failed to conduct the Field Sobriety Tests in substantial compliance with NHTSA guidelines. As such, the State contended that Ms. Codeluppi did not put it on notice by setting forth any factual basis for her challenge to the constitutionality of the traffic stop and arrest. On November 14, 2011, after reviewing both parties’ arguments, the trial court denied Ms. Codeluppi’s motion to suppress without conducting the scheduled hearing, and, instead, set the matter for a pre-trial. In its order, the trial court stated:

[Ms. Codeluppi’s] Motion to Suppress is denied, at the [S]tate’s request, due to the fact it fails to state legal and factual bases with sufficient particularity to * * * place the prosecutor and the court on notice of the issues to be decided. * * * Case remains set for pretrial on 11/15/11 at 1:30 P.M.

This is an all-to-familiar response from some courts in addressing a motion to suppress and a powerful tactic to prevent a defendant from asserting a DUI motion to suppress.  Much confusion has been raised as to what does, and what does not, constitute a proper motion.  While it is understandable that a court does not want to make a prosecutor “guess” as to what may be raised in a DUI motion to suppress, it is also a devastating blow to deny the single most important motion in a case because of an improperly filed motion.  What is worse, some courts apply this standard in an arbitrary way, denying lengthy or boilerplate motions because they assert issues with too much particularity.  This confusion was addressed by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, in her majority opinion, wrote that a motion to suppress need not describe “in excruciating detail” the basis for arguing for suppression of the evidence. It does need, she said, to provide sufficient notice of the issues to be considered.  The motion to suppress, she wrote, “is merely a procedural vehicle to ‘put the ball into play’ and serve notice that the defendant intends to have the state meet its legislatively mandated burden of demonstrating compliance with any and all challenged regulations and requirements.”  Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Terrence O’Donnell, Sharon L. Kennedy, Judith L. French and William M. O’Neill joined Lanzinger’s opinion. Justice Paul E. Pfeifer dissented without an opinion, stating that he would affirm the Ninth District ruling.

Attorney Charles M. Rowland II dedicates his practice to defending the accused drunk driver in the Miami Valley and throughout Ohio during prom season and beyond.  He has the credentials and the experience to win your case and has made himself Dayton’s choice for drunk driving defense. Contact Charles Rowland by phone at (937) 318-1384 or toll-free at 1-888-ROWLAND (888-769-5263). If you need assistance after hours, call the 24/7 DUI Hotline at (937) 776-2671.  You can have DaytonDUI at your fingertips by downloading the DaytonDUI Android App or have DaytonDUI sent directly to your mobile device by texting DaytonDUI (one word) to 50500.  Follow DaytonDUI on Facebook, @DaytonDUI on Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, Pheed and Pintrest or get RSS of the Ohio DUI blog.  You can email CharlesRowland@DaytonDUI.com or visit his office at 2190 Gateway Dr., Fairborn, Ohio 45324.  “All I do is DUI defense.”

To learn more about a DUI motion to suppress check these city-specific sites at the following links:

FairbornDaytonSpringfieldKetteringVandaliaXeniaMiamisburgSpringboro,Huber HeightsOakwoodBeavercreekCenterville

Centerville Wins Big In Ohio Supreme Court (by DaytonDUI)

00Centerville DUITags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a 7 – 0 decision that Centerville may utilize a tax-increment financing plan (TIF) to assist with the development of the 268 acres known as the Dille Property, located both north and south of I-675 at Wilmington Pike. This decision ends more than five years of legal battles waged by Sugarcreek Township against the City of Centerville, and reversed an earlier ruling by the Second District Court of Appeals.

TIFs are public financing tools, established by the state of Ohio, used to make public improvements to an area to create jobs and improve local economies. When property values in the TIF area increase due to new construction, the property taxes collected on that increased value are temporarily redirected to a separate fund to pay for infrastructure improvements in that area. Sugarcreek Township has asserted that it was owed any new tax monies from the property. However, the decision, written by Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, states that since the township may still collect their share of taxes on the unimproved property and eventually from the improved property, “…the TIF enhances rather than interferes with the Township’s ability to collect taxes.”

TIF funds may pay specifically for infrastructure improvements in the TIF area, including road widenings, utility extensions and traffic signalization upgrades.What should have been a straightforward process became entangled in court battles as Sugarcreek Township began legal proceedings against the City of Centerville. “It is unfortunate that Sugarcreek Township has tied up this development process for more than five years through litigation,” said Greg Horn, Centerville city manager. “They have spent thousands of taxpayers’ dollars. As the defendant in this case, we have been forced to do the same, however, we are pleased that the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in our favor and look forward to assisting Cornerstone Development Group in bringing quality development and economic growth to our area.”

If you or a loved one are accused of drunk driving in Centerville, Ohio, CONTACT Centerville OVI attorney Charles M. Rowland II for a free consultation at (937) 318-1DUI (318-1384), or visit www.DaytonDUI.comwww.KetteringDUI.com orwww.CentervilleDUI.com. Charles Rowland regularly appears in the Kettering Municipal Court and has worked hard to earn the experience and credentials necessary to defend your Centerville OVI case.  To learn more, check out “How to Hire a DUI Attorney.”

”This article has been adapted from a City of Centerville press release which can be found at : http://www.centervilleohio.gov/centweb/