Ohio DUI Law: State v. Phillips (Drafting Motions to Suppress)
State v. Phillips, 2010-Ohio-1547, 08-MO-6 (OHCA7)
Defendant-appellant Lee A. appeals his conviction in the Monroe County Court for first-offense operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI). The central issues are whether the trial court erred in failing to suppress the field sobriety and breath test results.
It is well recognized that a suppression motion must set forth an adequate basis for the motion. v. Shindler (1994), 70 Ohio.St.3d 54, 58, 636 N.E.2d 319. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “[i]n order to require a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, the accused must the motion’s legal and factual bases with sufficient particularity to place the prosecutor and the court on notice of the issues to be decided.” Id. at syllabus, construing and following Crim.R. 47 and Xenia v. Wallace (1988), 37 Ohio.St.3d 216, 524 N.E.2d 889. After the defendant sets forth a sufficient basis for a motion to suppress, the burden shifts to the to demonstrate substantial compliance with the testing standards or regulations involved. v. Johnson (2000), 137 Ohio.App.3d 847, 851, 739 N.E.2d 1249.
Thus, when a motion to suppress the results of the field sobriety tests merely asserts that they were not performed in substantial compliance with the NHTSA standards and no factual basis is provided for why the defendant believed the officer did not comply with the NHTSA standard by pointing to facts that occurred during the tests or to instructions that the defendant believed did not comply with the standards, those allegations are not specific enough to shift the burden to the to demonstrate compliance with the NHTSA guidelines.
The Seventh District Court of Appeals held that D did not sufficiently raise the issues in his written motion to suppress, therefore, the State did not have anything to prove.
Note: this smacks of the olden days when writs were rejected for technical reasons at the discretion of the crown rather than using the system as a search for justice.