transcript of the suppression hearing in Ohio

2015State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 , 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 9} Reviewing the transcript of the suppression hearing and the video recording, we find that appellant’s actions violated R.C. 4511.33, which requires that a vehicle be operated within its lane of travel.

2015State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 , 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988), paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 9} Reviewing the transcript of the suppression hearing and the video recording, we find that appellant’s actions violated R.C. 4511.33, which requires that a vehicle be operated within its lane of travel.

2019“Accepting those facts as true, we must independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether they meet the applicable legal standard.” Id. {¶ 17} After reviewing the record, including the transcript of the suppression hearing and both videos of the interviews, we conclude that the trial court’s factual conclusions are supported by competent, credible evidence and meet applicable legal standards. {¶ 18} To “protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination,” Miranda requires police to use certain procedures in dealing with accused

2012While the credibility of the witnesses is a matter for the trial court to decide at a hearing on a motion to suppress, State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 , 639 N.E.2d 498 (2d Dist.1994), there was no contrary testimony offered on this point, and the trial court did not indicate that it found Phillips’s testimony not credible.

2013We have also reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing, as well as audio and video recordings and documentary evidence from April 27, 2010. {¶ 16} In Miranda, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , the United States Supreme Court held that the State may not use statements stemming from a defendant’s custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards to secure the 8 defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination.

2013We have also reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing, as well as audio and video recordings and documentary evidence from April 27, 2010. {¶ 16} In Miranda, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 , the United States Supreme Court held that the State may not use statements stemming from a defendant’s custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards to secure the 8 defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination.

2005State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177 , paragraph one of the syllabus, citing State v. Freeman (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 291 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 18} In the case sub judice, we have reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and find the trial court's factual findings are supported by competent credible evidence.

2005State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177 , paragraph one of the syllabus, citing State v. Freeman (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 291 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 18} In the case sub judice, we have reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and find the trial court's factual findings are supported by competent credible evidence.

2005Id.

2005City Bank v. Beyer (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 152 , 160 . {¶ 11} In State v. Carpenter, 6th Dist.

2025Case No. 25 BE 0006 [Cite as State v. Richardson, 2025-Ohio-3128 .] For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio, is affirmed.

2024State v. Clark, 38 Ohio St.3d 252, 261 (1988), citing North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979). {¶ 20} We have reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing, the exhibits submitted at the hearing, and the video recording of Pence’s interrogation by the police. -8- The entire encounter lasted approximately 90 minutes, including the time during which Pence wrote his statement.

2020State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2008-Ohio-5277 , ¶ 10. {¶31} In Fitzgerald I, this Court determined it was unable to review Mr. Fitzgerald’s arguments because a transcript of the suppression hearing was not made a part of the appellate record. 2019-Ohio-1038 at ¶ 6-9 .

2020State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85 , 2008-Ohio-5277 , ¶ 10. {¶31} In Fitzgerald I, this Court determined it was unable to review Mr. Fitzgerald’s arguments because a transcript of the suppression hearing was not made a part of the appellate record. 2019-Ohio-1038 at ¶ 6-9 .

2020Highland App. No. 19CA8 10 State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2019-Ohio-4539 , 140 N.E.3d 616 , ¶ 196 (though detectives misled Ford by telling him that his DNA was found on shoes and gloves, it was insufficient to render his confession involuntary). {¶22} We have reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and the audio recording of Greene's interview with Detective Antinore and find that the trial court properly denied Greene’s motion to suppress.

2019Ashland No. 2004-CA- 053, 2005-Ohio-1475, ¶ 67 . 4 For clarity, the transcript of the suppression hearing held July 19, 2018 will be referred to as “S.T.” Holmes County, Case Nos. 19CA004 and 19CA005 16 {¶37} The officers therefore, had articulable, specific facts that Mast was under the influence.

2019Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986), citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2019Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 420 , 106 S.Ct. 1135 , 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986), citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2018Delaware No. 17 CAC 03 0019, 2018-Ohio-150 , --N.E.3d--, ¶ 9, citing State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 , 87–88, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991); State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 178 , 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988).

2018Delaware No. 17 CAC 03 0019, 2018-Ohio-150 , --N.E.3d--, ¶ 9, citing State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 , 87–88, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991); State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 178 , 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988).

2018Delaware No. 17 CAC 03 0019, 2018-Ohio-150 , --N.E.3d--, ¶ 9, citing State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 , 87–88, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991); State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 178 , 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988).

2017Decision and Entry Overruling Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, Doc. #38, p. 4. {¶ 35} Courts have also stressed that “[a] translation of a suspect's Miranda rights need not be perfect or verbatim if the suspect understands that he need not speak to the police, that any statement made may be used against him, that he has a right to an attorney, and that an attorney will be appointed if he cannot afford one.” State v. Ramirez-Garcia, 141 Ohio App.3d 185, 188 , 750 N.E.2d 634 (12th Dist. 2001), citing Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 210-215 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989). -12- (Other

2017Decision and Entry Overruling Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, Doc. #38, p. 4. {¶ 35} Courts have also stressed that “[a] translation of a suspect's Miranda rights need not be perfect or verbatim if the suspect understands that he need not speak to the police, that any statement made may be used against him, that he has a right to an attorney, and that an attorney will be appointed if he cannot afford one.” State v. Ramirez-Garcia, 141 Ohio App.3d 185, 188 , 750 N.E.2d 634 (12th Dist. 2001), citing Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 210-215 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989). -12- (Other

2017Montgomery No. 23144, 2009-Ohio-2185 , 2009 WL 1264360 , and he asserts that "the State's argument that the totality of the circumstances justified the pat down frisk should be overruled." Ewing asserts that he did not resist arrest, pursuant to R.C. 2921.33(A)(1), or obstruct official business, pursuant to R.C. 2921.31(A), and he argues that pursuant to either statute, "the duties of an officer must be lawful or the arrest itself must be lawful." {¶ 25} Ewing asserts that the State "relies solely on the concept of flight to make its argument that the arrest of Ewing was justified." Ewing asse

2017He asserts that "on re-direct, Officer Reeb testified specifically that the arrest of Ewing was based on items found on Ewing's person." Ewing asserts that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply because "the State failed to show that the police 'were actively pursuing an alternate line of investigation, one untainted by the illegality that took place prior to the particular misconduct,' " quoting State v. Porter , 178 Ohio App.3d 304 , 2008-Ohio-4627 , 897 N.E.2d 1149 (2d Dist.).

2017He asserts that "on re-direct, Officer Reeb testified specifically that the arrest of Ewing was based on items found on Ewing's person." Ewing asserts that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply because "the State failed to show that the police 'were actively pursuing an alternate line of investigation, one untainted by the illegality that took place prior to the particular misconduct,' " quoting State v. Porter , 178 Ohio App.3d 304 , 2008-Ohio-4627 , 897 N.E.2d 1149 (2d Dist.).

2017State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 16 .

2017State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306, ¶ 16 .

2017Decision and Entry Overruling Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, Doc. #38, p. 4. {¶ 35} Courts have also stressed that “[a] translation of a suspect's Miranda rights need not be perfect or verbatim if the suspect understands that he need not speak to the police, that any statement made may be used against him, that he has a right to an attorney, and that an attorney will be appointed if he cannot afford one.” State v. Ramirez-Garcia, 141 Ohio App.3d 185, 188 , 750 N.E.2d 634 (12th Dist. 2001), citing Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 210-215 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989). -12- (Other

2017Decision and Entry Overruling Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, Doc. #38, p. 4. {¶ 35} Courts have also stressed that “[a] translation of a suspect's Miranda rights need not be perfect or verbatim if the suspect understands that he need not speak to the police, that any statement made may be used against him, that he has a right to an attorney, and that an attorney will be appointed if he cannot afford one.” State v. Ramirez-Garcia, 141 Ohio App.3d 185, 188 , 750 N.E.2d 634 (12th Dist. 2001), citing Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 210-215 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989). -12- (Other

2015Greene No. 2012-CA-59, 2013-Ohio-3051, ¶ 22 . {¶ 20} We have reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing and the exhibits admitted at that hearing, including the video recording of Jones’s interview with Detective Dix.

2010The Court in State v. Taylor, found that “[t]he act of speeding at a nominal excess coupled with the arresting officers’ perception of the odor of alcohol, and nothing more, did not furnish probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving under the influence.” (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 197, 197-98 , 444 N.E.2d 481 (emphasis in original).

2010The Court in State v. Taylor, found that “[t]he act of speeding at a nominal excess coupled with the arresting officers’ perception of the odor of alcohol, and nothing more, did not furnish probable cause to arrest the defendant for driving under the influence.” (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 197, 197-98 , 444 N.E.2d 481 (emphasis in original).

2008Id. {¶ 17} We have reviewed the transcript of the suppression hearing. 1 From our review of the record, we agree with the trial court’s finding that at the time of the polygraph and interview, King had not been charged with a crime and had not been arrested.

2008Davis , supra, at 461-462 ; State v. Jackson , 107 Ohio St.3d 300 , 2006-Ohio-1 , at ¶ 93 . {¶ 78} We have reviewed State's Exhibit 2, as well as the transcript of the suppression hearing, and we find that appellant's statements were not obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.