Login | May 21, 2025
9th District reverses Medina Cty. court’s denial of motion to suppress
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: March 9, 2022
A Medina County trial court abused its discretion by denying an OVI defendant’s request to file a motion to suppress, the 9th District Court of Appeals ruled recently.
David Minor was charged with violating R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), 4511.33, and 4511.991 after a Nov. 20, 2020, traffic stop.
On Nov. 24, 2020, Minor filed a demand for discovery and a motion to preserve physical, audio and video evidence. On Dec. 14, 2020, Minor filed a motion to continue the Dec. 16, 2020, pretrial because he had not yet received the video flash drive from the prosecutor’s office. Due to the prosecutor’s office’s COVID-19 protocols, counsel could not pick up the video and instead had to mail a flash drive to the prosecutor’s office with a self-addressed return envelope to receive the video evidence.
According to court records, Minor informed the trial court that online tracking reflected the parcel was still in transit to the prosecutor’s office and that the website indicated that the post office was impacted by package increases and limited employee availability.
The motion to continue was granted.
The pretrial was held Dec. 30, 2020, and the related filing indicates a motion to suppress was anticipated. On Jan. 20, 2021, Minor filed a motion to suppress. The state objected to the motion, arguing it was untimely and that Minor failed to file a motion for an extension of time prior to the expiration of the deadline.
More than 35 days had passed since Minor’s arraignment. Minor alleged he had not filed the motion earlier because he was waiting for receipt of all the evidence. In addition, defense counsel stated he was waiting until the Dec. 30, 2020, pretrial conference to attempt to resolve the case with the prosecutor.
In the motion to suppress, Minor argued the officer lacked a proper basis to stop his vehicle, to arrest him for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and to request he exit the vehicle to perform field sobriety testing. In addition, he said the dashcam video supported his argument there was no marked lanes violation to support the stop.
That same day, the trial court issued an order finding Minor did not seek leave to extend the filing deadline and that he had failed to demonstrate good cause. The trial court also noted the motion for leave was filed in response to the state’s objection.
On Feb. 2, 2021, Minor filed a motion asking the trial court to reconsider the denial of the motion for leave to file the motion to suppress, but it was denied.
Ninth District judges Donna J. Carr, Thomas Teodosio and Betty Sutton agreed the case should be reversed and remanded.
In her opinion, Judge Carr noted that prior to the first pretrial, Minor filed a motion for a continuance of the pretrial stating that he had not received all of the discovery, particularly the videos.
“Therein, Minor indicated that, due to COVID-19 precautions, Minor could not go into the prosecutor’s office to retrieve the video, and instead, had to mail an empty flash drive to the prosecutor’s office, which would be mailed back to him with the video transferred to the flash drive,” she wrote. “Minor mailed a flash drive on Dec. 4, 2020, but as of Dec. 14, 2020, the parcel was still in transit to the prosecutor’s office.”
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion.
“Minor demonstrated good cause for the untimely filing,” Judge Carr wrote. “He did not receive the video evidence, which was delayed due to COVID-19 precautions, until after the deadline for filing pretrial motions. Nothing in the record suggests that Minor’s counsel was derelict in his efforts to obtain the discovery in a timely manner. Minor’s counsel’s affidavit accompanying the motion for reconsideration further clarified that the video provided the source for the issues raised in the motion to suppress, which Minor’s counsel was not aware of until December 29, 2020. Given the foregoing, including the added challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic, we cannot say that the timing of the filing of Minor’s counsel’s motion for leave was unreasonable.”
The case is cited State v. Minor, 2022-Ohio-327.