Tessa L.

Maxwell
March 27, 2016
Ch. 10 Motion to Suppress
PAR 2510-5T1

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO

CRIMINAL DIVISION
STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHRIS CHRISTOPHER
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO: 2016 CR 03251

Judge: T.L. Maxwell

MOTION TO SUPPRESS
WITH SUPPORTING
MEMORANDUM

Defendant, Chris Christopher, by and through counsel, respectfully requests this

Honorable Court to suppress any and all tangible evidence, statements, and identifications from
the Defendants search and seizure obtained on the date of his arrest. Specifically, on the
grounds that such evidence, statements, and identifications were obtained in violation of
Defendants rights as pledged by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United
States Constitution. Any statements on the date of Defendants arrest, were made without the
benefit of counsel, without full and adequate explanation of Defendants Miranda Rights,
pursuant to Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86
S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
A memorandum in support is attached.
Respectfully submitted,
Orlando & Orlando CO., L.P.A.
/s/ Elizabeth Orlando
Elizabeth Orlando, Esq. (#222222)
Attorney for Defendant
111 Defense Lane
Dayton, Ohio 45402-1202
(937) 223-0122
orlando@defenseforyou.com
Page 1|4

Tessa L. Maxwell
March 27, 2016
Ch. 10 Motion to Suppress
PAR 2510-5T1
MEMORANDUM
I.

FACTS

On May 9, 2011, Defendant was walking home from work when he was stopped by
Officer Justice on 111 First Street, Dayton, Ohio 45403. Allegedly, Defendant was stopped on
the basis that a robbery had taken place in the neighborhood and the police officer was talking to
individuals throughout the area. Additionally, the officer explained to the defendant that a
woman stated a masked man held her at gunpoint and stole forty dollars ($40.00) from her purse.
Defendant explained to the officer that he had no knowledge of the situation and was simply
walking home from work.
The police officer asked Defendant if he could search him for officer safety purposes.
Defendant unaware of his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights consented to the police
officers search for police officer safety. After the police officer patted down the defendant the
officer asked Defendant to remove a paper type material. Defendant pulled out forty dollars
($40.00) from his pocket.
Immediately, Defendant was arrested and placed in the police officers vehicle without
explanation of his Miranda Rights. Another officer arrived with the victim and the victim
identified Defendant as the assailant. However, the victim previously reported that the assailant
was wearing a mask.
II.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

Defendant argues that the officer did not have a reasonable articulable suspicion that
defendant was armed and dangerous that would have justified the necessity for a weapons check
for public or officer safety. Therefore, the evidence seized was an impermissible search and a
violation of Defendants Constitutional rights.
1.

The stop and search of Defendant was in violation of his Constitutional rights
A.

Stop, Search, and Evidence

The stop of Defendant and the evidence obtained should be suppressed. The Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio
Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to be secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Millerton, 2015-Ohio-34 (Ohio Ct. App.,
Montgomery County 2015).

Page 2|4

Tessa L. Maxwell
March 27, 2016
Ch. 10 Motion to Suppress
PAR 2510-5T1
B.

Identification

The identification that was obtained by the victim should be suppressed. Due to the fact,
that the victim previously stated the assailant was wearing a mask. The mere fact that our
rights are held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of
every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or
interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Ry.
Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 35 L.Ed. 734, 737 (1891).
Additionally, when reviewing a motion to suppress it needs to be supported by credible
evidence. State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586, (1994) and State v. Love, 2d Dist.
Montgomery, 2011-Ohio-1287.
III.

Conclusion

The stop, search, and evidence of Defendant constitutes as a denial of the defendants
rights as guaranteed by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Additionally, all
statements allegedly made are impermissible due to the fruit of the poisonous tree and should
be suppressed.
Respectfully submitted,
Orlando & Orlando CO., L.P.A.
/s/ Elizabeth Orlando
Elizabeth Orlando, Esq. (#222222)
Attorney for Defendant
111 Defense Lane
Dayton, Ohio 45402-1202
(937) 223-0122
orlando@defenseforyou.com

Page 3|4

Tessa L. Maxwell
March 27, 2016
Ch. 10 Motion to Suppress
PAR 2510-5T1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was forward to the
Prosecuting Attorney on the 25th day of March, 2016 by U.S. Mail.
Paul Paulson, Esq., #111111
Montgomery County Prosecutor
111 Justice Drive
Dayton, Ohio 45402
937-555-5555
Paul.pauson@justice.org

Page 4|4