"FORGET PROBABLE CAUSE, LET'S JUST ARREST HIM. WE CAN SORT IT OUT LATER!"

     After ignoring all the obvious signs that there was no obvious criminal activity after an observation of nearly one full hour, these unskilled and unschooled sheriff’s deputies rushed headlong into the situation, without thinking, without determining whether they had probable cause, and arrested Defendant without probable cause.  The deputies seized the unloaded .22 caliber target pistol from Defendant.

         At the suppression hearing, Deputies Frank Telatko and Douglas Clinage were the only two sheriff’s deputies to offer testimony.

         When questioned on cross-examination as to reasons for making the arrest, Deputy Telatko, the arresting officer, testified, “we had a call” and “he (Defendant) had a gun.” When questioned further, Telatko testified, “WE TOOK HIM INTO CUSTODY UNTIL WE COULD SORT IT ALL OUT."


          It is noted that the proper law of the land, outside Medina County, does not provide for an officer making an arrest with the intent of "sorting it out later."  It has to be reasonably "sorted out" by an officer prior to making an arrest, AS A MATTER OF LAW!

         Deputy Clinage, the lead investigator to whom the case was assigned by the Medina County Sheriff’s Office, did not arrive on the scene until after the time that Defendant had been arrested. When questioned during the suppression hearing, on cross-examination, as to the probable cause for the arrest, Clinage testified, in part, that the evening of May 27, 2009 had been a “complicated night” because “the charge kept changing.”

Neither Telatko nor Clinage, the State’s only two witnesses, were able to testify as to the essential facts that led to Defendant’s arrest, as the record will show!


It is therefore understandable why Clinage failed to set out the essential facts in his defective criminal complaint.  He was simply unable to do so, since there were no facts to set out by which he could establish probable cause for an arrest.

         It is elemental that a police officer must satisfy himself that a suspect has probably violated all of the elements of a specific offense in order to establish probable cause upon which to base an arrest.  It is clear from the testimony given at the suppression hearing that none of the officers had accomplished this requisite mental exercise prior to taking Defendant into custody.  Probable cause cannot be formed in an officer’s mind in hindsight ... EXCEPT IN MEDINA COUNTY AND BEFORE COLLIER!

         Possession of an unconcealed firearm, most particularly in the rural area of the scene, that is adjacent to a shooting range as is the Flintstone residence, is not a criminal offense. The information relayed to the dispatcher and originating from Wilma Flintstone, as deputies contemporaneously surveyed the scene and observed Defendant and Mr. Flintstone talking peacefully in the driveway for nearly one full hour, was not only uncorroborated but was actually refuted by the deputies’ personal observations.

         These sheriff’s deputies are obviously poorly trained, do not comprehend the most basic laws of arrest, search and seizure, probable cause, and have demonstrated extremely poor judgment as a result.

         In the defense Motion to Suppress, defense counsel drew the COLLIER’s attention to Illinois v Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) and allied cases, holding that a “tip” requires corroboration by law enforcement officers before probable cause can be reasonably established.

         It is clear from the testimony adduced at the suppression hearing that the deputies arrested Defendant without probable cause. Therefore, the physical evidence seized from the Defendant incident to the unlawful arrest should have been suppressed as fruits of the poisonous tree, as held by the United States Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio.

In 1961, more than 50 years ago, the United States Supreme Court decided Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), holding "that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts."

For a snapshot of Mapp v. Ohio, you can follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio

 Nevertheless, CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY JUDGE COLLIER accepted the tainted evidence as properly admitted at trial, contrary to the prevailing case law and all to the intended benefit of the prosecutor.  COLLIER didn't want to displease HOLMAN by ruling in accord with the LAW OF THE LAND!  

PERHAPS COLLIER BELIEVED THE SUPREME COURT WAS IN ERROR IN DECIDING THE LAW OF THE LAND!  AFTER ALL, SUPREME COURT JUSTICES HOLD LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS, JUST LIKE COLLIER HAS A LIFETIME UNCONTESTED APPOINTMENT TO THE MEDINA COUNTY BENCH COMPLIMENTS OF CORRUPT MEDINA COUNTY PROSECUTOR DINO HOLMAN!

MUCH MORE TO COME ....