Fifth District explains that, "A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a pretrial motion to suppress in an OVI case as 'untimely filed' where the motion to suppress was promptly filed after the state provided discovery and the request for leave articulate the reason for the late filing."

State v. Bryson, 2017 Ohio 830 (5th Dist.).

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2017/2017-Ohio-830.pdf

March 6, 2017

Bryson was cited with an OVI and arraigned on May 16, 2016. On May 31 a pre-trial was held, on June 2 the state responded to Bryson's request for discovery, and on June 28 Bryson received a copy of dash-cam video. On July 8 Bryson filed a request for leave to file an untimely motion to suppress and on July 14 the court denied the motion without a hearing or explanation.

Motions to suppress must be filed within 35 days of the arraignment or seven days before trial, whichever is earlier. A trial court may "in the interest of justice" extend the time for making pretrial motions. The Fifth District reasoned that, "A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a pretrial motion to suppress in an OVI case as 'untimely filed' where the motion to suppress was promptly filed after the state provided discovery and the request for leave articulate the reason for the late filing."

Applying that rule, the Fifth District held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for leave. It noted that no trial date had been set, the issue could be dispositive of the case, and the state did not provide discovery until after the deadline.