Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton
Appeals From: Hamilton County Trial No. C-16TRC-31463A/B
T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M.
Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and
Joshua A. Thompson, Assistant Public Defender, for
Plaintiff-appellant, state of Ohio, appeals from the decision
of the Hamilton County Municipal Court granting the motion in
limine filed by defendant-appellee Ernest L. Thyot. We find
merit in the state's sole assignment of error, and
therefore, we reverse the trial court's judgment and
remand the cause for further proceedings.
Facts and Procedure
The record shows that Thyot was charged with operating a
motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol under R.C.
4511.19(A)(1)(a) and driving under suspension under R.C.
4510.11(A). He filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude a
video taken from a Thornton's gas station purportedly
showing him operating a motor vehicle on the date in
At a hearing on the motion, the state presented the testimony
of Tom Tegenkamp, a regional manager for Thornton's Oil
Co. He supervised eight stores, including store 560, located
at 12185 Princeton Pike. He was familiar with that store
because he had helped open it about a year prior to the
Tegenkamp was also familiar with the store's surveillance
system, which he had used in the past for "various
investigations and that sort of thing." He testified
that it was a "continuous recording closed-circuit
surveillance system, " meaning that there were 12 to 16
cameras at each store, which were recording "24 hours a
day, seven days a week." Tegenkamp was one of three
people who could access the system, and the videos were made
in the ordinary course of business.
The system stored all recordings on the hard drive, which was
kept for 90 days. The hard drives were stored in the office
at the site. If a recording had to be saved longer than 90
days, it was burned onto a DVD or stored on a flash drive.
Tegenkamp identified a frame of a video on a DVD as a
"video of our fueling areas in front of * * * Store
560." He also testified that the video was taken on July
4, 2016, at 9:00 in the evening. He knew the date and time
because it was "superimposed on the bottom of the
picture, right below the picture." He indicated that
there had been no problems with the recording system in the
past and that he had no reason to believe the time and date
Tegenkamp acknowledged that he was not present when the video
was recorded, and that he had no personal knowledge of the
events that appeared in the video. He was also not the
individual who had burned the video onto a DVD.
Following the hearing, the trial court granted Thyot's
motion in limine. The court noted that the state had to prove
that the video tape "fairly, truly and accurately"
depicted what it purported to depict and that the
"condition of the ...