*1 solely relied on dispatch report and then car appellee’s approxi- followed mately thirty time, to forty admits, seconds. In that short the officer he did not observe weaving other erratic him driving to lead to believe that appellee Nevertheless, was committing a crime. stopped he appellee’s vehicle. circumstances,
Under the totality I arresting believe officer lacked reasonable suspicion vehicle, and articulable to stop appellee’s and conse- quently violated appellee’s constitutional rights. Since believe that the police justification vehicle, lacked to stop appellee’s in my opinion appellee’s Fourth rights Amendment were violated. Accordingly, would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. C.J., J.,
Moyer,
Bowman,
concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
County
Education, Appellee,
Columbus Board of
v. Franklin
al., Appellees;
Board of
et
Revision
Catholic
Appellant.
Parishes,
Inc.,
as
[Cite
Columbus Bd.
Edn. v. Franklin Cty.
(No. 1999.) 98-2027 Submitted June 1999 Decided December *2 Wheeler, R. Teaford, Jeffrey Gorry, appellee Rich A. Rich and James for & Board of Education. Columbus Associates, Sleggs Frencb-Skaggs, for Sleggs
Todd W. & Todd W. and Susan appellant. and, consequently,
Per Curiam. find the BTA’s decision to be unlawful We it. reverse that, year for tax City under R.C. argues in the valid for 1996 because the value contested 1993
1993 to be tax The BOE finally responds was decided until 1996. not not for tax 1996 and that Inner carry 1993 did
307 to file a needed fresh to contest the value. We with Inner City. 5715.19(D) contains carryover-value provisions continuing-complaint and
provisions. Cincinnati Edn. v. Bd. School Dist. Hamilton (1996), 1179; Columbus, L.P. Ohio St.3d 660 N.E.2d Concord v. Testa 449. App.3d Ohio N.E.2d The statute states: “(D) The determination of shall relate back to the date for recoupment charges the lien taxes or for the current attached or liability the date as of which for such Liability determined. taxes recoupment charges and for such each until succeeding year and finally penalty nonpayment and interest for determination, thereof required by upon with the time law shall be based * * * valuation, or assessment as If determined. filed under *3 this section for year by the current is not determined the board [of revision] [ninety days within after the filing complaint], complaint any the the and in proceedings relation thereto shall be continued by the board as a valid complaint any ensuing year until such is complaint by determined the any case, board or upon appeal from a decision of the In original board. the complaint shall in continue effect without further filing by original taxpayer, the his or assignee, person entity other or to a complaint authorized file under this section.” 5717.03, revision,
Under R.C. in appeals from boards of the BTA must to, determine the taxable value of property certify the and the decision inter alios, county the final, officials, auditor. When the BTA’s order becomes the tax auditor, including county the must in changes “make the their tax lists or other records which the decision requires.” Evidently, the Franklin County Auditor did not obligation execute this in this case. The auditor should have automatical- ly carried over the 1993 value determined in 1996 BTA by the for tax 1996. Cincinnati Revision, School Dist. Bd. Edn. v. Hamilton supra.
According to R.C. complaint for 1993 continued as a valid 1996, into tax year when the BTA finally determined the 1993 com- statute, plaint. According to this original, 1993 “shall in continue effect without filing by original further taxpayer, assignee, his or other person entity authorized to file a under this section.” We do not follow the BTA path 30, took in declaring August 1996 decision 5715.19(D) proceedings. terminated the interpret We R.C. to mean that the 1993 complaint continued to be for tax City valid 1996 and that Inner was not required course, to file a fresh for that Of a fresh complaint by or the BOE have carryover halted the automatic of the value in Thus, the 1993 complaint. Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. Edn. further for tax 1996 without jurisdiction had the BOR City. by Inner filing BTA’s reverse it. On we that the decision unlawful and
Accordingly, hold remand, BTA to reinstate decision. we order the the BOR’s
Decision reversed and cause remanded. C.J., F.E. Lundberg Stratton, Resnick, Sweeney, Moyer, Douglas, Pfeifer JJ., concur.
Cook, J., concurs separately. J., majority’s opinion separate- concur with the but write Cook, concurring. support majority’s further for the ly with determination. complaints case before concerns the over taxpayer us BOR’s 5715.19(D). continuing-complaint provision Specifically, we are
under
(the
City’s
through
to determine if Inner
asked
BTA’s
concerning
complaint),
the 1993
the BOR
providing
decision
to
value of
for that
adjust
property
with
ordinarily
invoke BOR
a
a
To
must
file with the BOR
5715.19;
5715.13;
Stanjim
for the tax
at issue. See
R.C.
Co.
R.C.
Mahoning Cty.
v.
Bd. Revision
38 Ohio St.2d
67 O.O.2d
5715.19(D)
14.
provides
exception
N.E.2d
an
to
where
requirement
*4
complaint
previously
has
been filed with the BOR and its determination is
on appeal.
provides
In those situations the
rule
pending
continuing-complaint
years following
complaint year
the BOR with
over the
the original
complaint
“finally
During
period,
until
has been
determined.”
that
original complaint
filing
“continues” and the
is relieved of the burden of
taxpayer
Columbus,
L.P. v.
complaints.
App.3d
additional
Concord
Testa
Ohio
205,
The issue of when a ceases to continue under statute —the crux BTA, addressed this or other The in its appeal by of this not been courts. —has below, that under finality principles, decision concluded the BOR’s August finally the 1996 when the BTA issued its ended decision contrast, determining majority, The in not consider complaint. did 5715.19(D) principles finality solely language but looked at the of R.C. general by throughout its continues the complaint and concluded the statute terms I Although majority’s disposition, with the the determination 5715.19(D) language believe that further consideration of the of R.C. and the underlying statutory majority’s scheme is warranted to refine the rationale. majority, language ambiguous
Unlike the consider the of the statute to be as to an original complaint, jurisdiction, whether and therefore continues for the 5715.19(D) portion entire determination The relevant states will be “as a until any ensuing year valid by is or upon any appeal.” the board This language could read to be either include the determination or to end jurisdiction midyear, at the time of final A determination. review the 5715.19(D), however, statutory surrounding scheme R.C. helps answer some that uncertainty majority’s and convinces me that the interpretation appropri- ate. (A)(2) (D) interplay between subsection and subsection of R.C. 5725.19
provides us with some legislative sense intent behind this statute. As earlier, (D) stated purpose in continuing-complaint provision subsection tois relieve from taxpayers filing complaints for each that the case on the original complaint statute, is still pending. Without that a taxpayer would be compelled to file a each in to order retain BOR despite the fact that the original complaint is still being Notably, considered. 5715.19(A)(2) R.C. also concerns the complaints number of that a taxpayer may file, limiting that number to no more than one in period, a triennial with four exceptions. together,
Read these suggest legislative statutes a intent to avoid unnecessary burdens to both the and the by eliminating BOR complaints. redundant taxpayer Additional in complaints those instances only constitute meaningless hurdles. As the BTA in recognized Zaremba v. Summit Bd. Revision (Nov. 8, 1996), 5715.19(D) 94-B-1290, BTA No. “to enacted avoid the vain acts of the annual filing of applications complaints], [and the resultant rejection, and the multiple appeals with the board of revision and the of tax board appeals.” Because the majority’s interpretation of the continuing-complaint provision eliminates complaint, with, one more it is furthers, consistent purpose. statute’s
Maybe
however,
even more compelling,
is the fact that the BTA’s interpreta-
tion of R.C.
applied
conjunction
(A)(2),
in
with subsection
could
in
injustice
result
Assume,
inadvertent
to certain taxpayers.
instance,
that a
in
the first
of a triennial period, and the
*5
was
appeal
determined on
in 1995. If the final decision revalued
the property for 1993 but carried it
only
year,
over
to the 1994 tax
taxpayer
the
likely request
the
carry
See,
BOR also to
over the 1993 value to 1995.
e.g.,
Horizon S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty.
28, 1989),
(Apr.
BTA
of
where the
similar situation
(involving a somewhat
and 87-B-313
87-B-312
Nos.
relief).
of R.C.
interpretation
BTA’s
Under the
the same
requested
taxpayer
it
1995 because
jurisdiction over
however,
would have no
the BOR
to file
required
would be
taxpayer
the
year. Accordingly,
the determination
jurisdiction.
invoke BOR
1995 in order to
complaint for
a new
doing
from
so
5715.19(A)(2),
prohibited
would be
taxpayer
the
But, under R.C.
triennial
complaint per
to one
taxpayer
limits the
generally
that
because
section
for
therefore,
accessing
the BOR
would,
have no means
taxpayer
period.
the result the
outcome cannot have been
This unfair
resolution of this issue.
of the
reading
Such a
drafting
provision.
when
Assembly intended
General
interpretation.
in favor of the more reasonable
rejected
be
statute should
5715.19(D) ending
juris-
BOR
Furthermore,
interpretation
the BTA’s
when
plausible
becomes less
final
of the
upon the
determination
diction
jurisdiction
over a
possibility
in the
BOR
that it would result
we consider
final
so that
the
determination
If we read the statute
partial year.
prior
existed
to that
jurisdiction
it follows that
ends
This cannot have been the intended
year.
the first
of that
part
determination
the
support
concept
no
supply
as the taxation statutes
provision,
result of this
years.
partial
considerations,
that
acknowledge
principle
we
statutory
In
to these
addition
taxpayer, except
in favor of the
tax
must be resolved
ambiguous
provisions
(1954),
v. Peck
an
See B.F. Goodrich Co.
ambiguity
exemption.
involves
Lines,
525;
91,
Tracy
Inc. v.
53 O.O.
118 N.E.2d
Ohio St.
Lakefront
Here,
either to
the statute could be read