Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. andre L. Bush

November 17, 2011

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
ANDRE L. BUSH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-543922

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kathleen Ann Keough, J.:

Cite as State v. Bush,

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

BEFORE: Keough, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and Jones, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Andre L. Bush ("Bush"), appeals the trial court's decision denying his motion to suppress. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶2} In November 2010, Bush was charged with escape in violation of R.C. 2921.34(A)(1). Bush filed a "motion to dismiss," which the trial court treated as a motion to suppress based on the arguments raised within the motion. At the suppression hearing, the following evidence was presented.

{¶3} On the evening of November 2, 2010, Cleveland police officers Eric Newton and Shane Bauhof were riding in a marked zone car on basic patrol. While patrolling the area of East 103rd Street and Union Avenue, the officers observed a vehicle traveling northbound and noticed that its rear license plate was not illuminated, which is a violation of the traffic laws of the city of Cleveland. The officers activated the zone car's overhead lights to effectuate a stop of the vehicle. The vehicle immediately pulled over and the driver turned off the car's engine. Both officers exited the zone car; Officer Newton approached the passenger side of the stopped vehicle and Officer Bauhof approached the driver's side.

{¶4} Officer Newton testified that as he approached, he could see three individuals inside the vehicle; the back seat passenger, later identified as Bush, was shifting back and forth in the seat and making a lot of movements with his head. Officer Newton testified that these movements caused him "great alarm" because, based on his experience, such movements typically indicate that the person is concealing or retrieving something. Officer Newton testified that once he reached the passenger side of the vehicle, he could smell marijuana and he observed marijuana in the back seat with Bush. According to Officer Newton, Bush admitted they were "just smoking marijuana." As he was standing next to the vehicle, Officer Newton noticed that Bush kept moving his hands down near his lap and waistband; Bush was ordered multiple times to keep his hands visible to the officers.

{¶5} When asked for identification, Bush said that he did not have any. At that point, Officer Newton instructed Bush to exit the vehicle. Officer Newton testified that he placed Bush in handcuffs and while patting Bush down for officer safety, he felt what appeared to be the cylinder of a revolver. Bush then fled on foot; he was ultimately apprehended and arrested. On cross-examination, Officer Newton admitted that before Bush fled, it was his intention to arrest Bush for a minor misdemeanor drug abuse offense because Bush could not produce identification.

{¶6} Bush appeals, raising as his sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

{¶7} Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶8. In deciding a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact. Id. A reviewing court is bound to accept those findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Id. But with respect to the trial court's conclusion of law, we apply a de novo standard of review and decide whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard. Id., citing State v. McNamara (1977), 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 707 N.E.2d 539.

{ΒΆ8} Bush first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the police lacked reasonable suspicion justifying the stop of the vehicle. Officers Newton and Bauhof ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.