State v. Ruff
2012 Ohio 1910
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- State indicts Ruff for multiple robberies and weapons offenses based on a September 21, 2010 incident.
- Two witnesses identified Ruff from photo lineups conducted by a detective.
- Trial court suppressed the identifications for noncompliance with R.C. 2933.83(B) (record-keeping and procedures).
- The court held the suppression was warranted solely under R.C. 2933.83(B) due to noncompliance.
- The state appeals, urging that R.C. 2933.83(C)(1) does not independently authorize suppression and that the lineup procedures may still be constitutional.
- Ruff argues that suppression should rest on constitutional unreliability rather than statutory noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 2933.83(C)(1) provide an independent ground for suppression? | Ruff | State | No independent ground; suppression based on constitutional grounds only. |
| Is noncompliance with R.C. 2933.83(B) alone sufficient to suppress pretrial identifications? | Ruff | State | Noncompliance alone is insufficient; must rely on constitutional evidence of unreliability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kettering v. Hollen, 64 Ohio St.2d 232 (1980) (exclusionary rule not applied to statutory violations absent legislative mandate)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (reliability central to admissibility of identification)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (reliability underpinning identification admissibility)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1976) (focus on reliability in identification)