2012 Ohio 4365
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Arrazzaq was convicted after pleading no contest to trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, carrying a concealed weapon, and weapon while under a disability; firearm specifications apply to drug counts.
- Deputy Bremerer observed suspicious movements and an expired front license plate at a motel parking lot, a known crime hotspot, and later located Arrazzaq driving the vehicle.
- Bremerer initiated a traffic stop and anticipated needing an inventory search; Boster sought consent to search the vehicle.
- Arrazzaq testified he did not consent to the search; deputies testified he consented; the trial court denied the suppression motion.
- The appellate court upheld the denial of the suppression motion but vacated and remanded to impose a mandatory driver's license suspension that the trial court had failed to impose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suppression denial was proper | Arrazzaq contends no consent and improper warrantless search. | Arrazzaq asserts no voluntary consent and no valid basis for search. | Sustained: consent supported search; suppression proper. |
| Whether the sentence omission of a mandatory license suspension rendered the sentence void | The conviction required a license suspension which was not imposed. | Argues the omission was reversible error only on sentencing. | Vacate and remand to impose the mandatory license suspension. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. Supreme Court 1973) (consent is a valid exception to the warrant requirement)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (mixed question of law and fact standard for suppression reviews)
- State v. Bryan, 101 Ohio St.3d 272 (2004) (credibility determinations are for the trial court)
- State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012) (mandatory license suspension when required by statute)