(A) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of this state or of a political subdivision of this state, other than a grand jury, may request the involved court, department, officer, agency, body, or authority, by motion, to suppress the contents, or evidence derived from the contents, of a wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted pursuant to sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code for any of the following reasons:
(1) The communication was unlawfully intercepted.
(2) The interception warrant under which the communication was intercepted is insufficient on its face.
(3) The interception was not made in conformity with the interception warrant or an oral order for an interception granted under section 2933.57 of the Revised Code.
(4) The communications are of a privileged character and a special need for their interception is not shown or is inadequate as shown.
(B) Any motion filed pursuant to division (A) of this section shall be made before the trial, hearing, or proceeding at which the contents, or evidence derived from the contents, is to be used, unless there was no opportunity to make the motion or the aggrieved person was not aware of the intercepted communications or the grounds of the motion. Upon the filing of the motion by the aggrieved person, the judge or other officer conducting the trial, hearing, or proceeding may make available to the aggrieved person or the person's counsel for inspection any portions of the intercepted communication or evidence derived from the intercepted communication as the judge or other officer determines to be in the interest of justice. If the judge or other officer grants the motion to suppress evidence pursuant to this section, the contents, or the evidence derived from the contents, of the intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of the law, and the contents and evidence derived from the contents shall not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or proceeding.
(C) In addition to any other right to appeal, the state shall have an appeal as of right from an order granting a motion to suppress the contents, or evidence derived from the contents, of a wire, oral, or electronic communication that was intercepted pursuant to an interception warrant or an oral order for an interception granted under section 2933.57 of the Revised Code, or the denial of an application for an interception warrant, if the state's representative certifies to the judge or other official who granted the motion or denied the application that the appeal is not taken for purposes of delay. Any appeal shall be taken within thirty days after the date the order was entered and shall be diligently prosecuted.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994).
State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 3ד52 prohibited the interception and taping of the conversations, and that R.C. 2933.63 6 required that the contents of the intercepted communications be suppressed.”
State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St. 3d 59 (Ohio 2000). “Thus, defendant argues that the trial court erred in not suppressing evidence from the tunnel tapes under former R.C. 2933.63. The court of appeals *66 agreed that such evidence should have been suppressed, but found the error harmless.”
State v. Campbell, 2022 Ohio 3626 (Ohio 2022). “Absent such a legislative mandate, this court is without authority to write an exclusionary remedy into the statute.”
State v. Wallace, 2012 Ohio 6270 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2ד{¶39} R.C. 2933.63(A) allows an “aggrieved person” to request the suppression of the contents of illegally intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication: (A) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency,…”
State v. Robb, 2000 Ohio 275 (Ohio 2000). “Thus, defendant argues that the trial court erred in not suppressing evidence from the tunnel tapes under former R.C. 2933.63. The court of appeals agreed that such evidence should have been suppressed, but found the error harmless.”
State v. Hearing, 2023 Ohio 3704 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4ד] {¶35} R.C. §2933.63 states, in pertinent part: (A) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court * * * may request the involved court * * * by motion, to suppress the contents, or evidence derived from the contents of a wire, oral, or…”
State v. Payne, 2013 Ohio 5230 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “62(A), and R.C. 2933.63(A). {¶15} In Hauptstueck, 2011-Ohio-3502 , the Second District reviewed R.”
State v. Diaw, 2024 Ohio 2237 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Compare R.C. 2933.63(A) (permitting, among other remedies, the suppression of evidence derived from an unlawful wiretap).”
State v. Davies, 763 N.E.2d 1222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3דThomas moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that R.C. 2933.63 required its suppression because Huff had illegally intercepted the communications between Thomas and Offerman, and all the evidence was derived from the information supplied by Huff.”
State v. Nettles, 2018 Ohio 4908 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “R.C. 2933.63 provides: (A) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of this state or of a political subdivision of this state, other than a grand jury, may request the…”
State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 2דTherefore, pursuant to R.C. 2933.63, the trial court was required to suppress the contents of the recorded communications.”
State v. Kellett, 2022 Ohio 4340 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Absent such a legislative mandate, this court is without authority to write an exclusionary remedy into the statute. Licking County, Case No.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.63(A) — 6 cases
State v. Campbell, 2022 Ohio 3626 (Ohio 2022). “Absent such a legislative mandate, this court is without authority to write an exclusionary remedy into the statute.”
State v. Wallace, 2012 Ohio 6270 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶39} R.C. 2933.63(A) allows an “aggrieved person” to request the suppression of the contents of illegally intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication: (A) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency,…”
State v. Payne, 2013 Ohio 5230 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “62(A), and R.C. 2933.63(A). {¶15} In Hauptstueck, 2011-Ohio-3502 , the Second District reviewed R.”
State v. Diaw, 2024 Ohio 2237 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “Compare R.C. 2933.63(A) (permitting, among other remedies, the suppression of evidence derived from an unlawful wiretap).”
State v. Davies, 763 N.E.2d 1222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Thomas moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that R.C. 2933.63 required its suppression because Huff had illegally intercepted the communications between Thomas and Offerman, and all the evidence was derived from the information supplied by Huff.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.63(A)(1) — 1 case
State v. Davies, 763 N.E.2d 1222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Thomas moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that R.C. 2933.63 required its suppression because Huff had illegally intercepted the communications between Thomas and Offerman, and all the evidence was derived from the information supplied by Huff.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.