In re D.G.
2017 Ohio 4261
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 5, 2014 Norwood officer Richard Krummen stopped and arrested 17‑year‑old D.G. for violating Norwood’s daytime‑curfew ordinance; while being transported D.G. spat on the officer, threatened to kill him, and kicked the cruiser windows.
- State charged D.G. as a delinquent for violating a prior court order (by violating the curfew) and for acts constituting menacing, disorderly conduct, and harassment by an inmate.
- D.G. moved to suppress the warrantless arrest, arguing he was on his way to school (an express exception to the curfew) when stopped; the magistrate denied suppression and found probable cause to arrest.
- Trial incorporated suppression‑hearing testimony; additional evidence included a search of D.G.’s backpack (no schoolbooks, contained car‑washing supplies) and testimony from a school administrator about Life Skills High School’s session times and curriculum.
- Magistrate adjudicated D.G. delinquent on all counts; trial court overruled objections and adopted the magistrate’s decisions. D.G. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D.G.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for warrantless arrest under daytime‑curfew ordinance | D.G. argued no probable cause because he was en route to school (exception to curfew) | Officer saw minor on public street during restricted hours; minor’s claim of going to school is not dispositive and can be weighed by officer | Court held probable cause existed; officer could reasonably conclude D.G. violated curfew; suppression denied |
| Whether travel‑to‑school exception must be resolved at suppression hearing | D.G. said the exception should resolve suppression in his favor | State: the minor’s statement is one factor; officer may disbelieve it and consider totality | Court held the exception is relevant at suppression, but statements are not dispositive; issue may be weighed with other facts |
| Weight of evidence that D.G. violated curfew / court order | D.G. argued evidence showed he was going to school (attended Life Skills) | State introduced backpack contents (car‑washing supplies), prior statements about washing cars, and location evidence | Court held trier of fact did not lose its way; weight supports delinquency for curfew violation |
| Sufficiency of evidence for menacing | D.G. argued evidence insufficient to show he acted knowingly or that officer reasonably believed he would cause harm | State cited threats to kill, spitting, repeated profanities and officer’s subjective fear, corroborated by transport video | Court held evidence was sufficient to prove menacing beyond reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for suppression rulings: accept trial court’s factual findings if supported; review application of law de novo)
- State v. Elmore, 111 Ohio St.3d 515 (Ohio 2006) (probable cause for arrest defined by what a reasonable and prudent person would believe based on the officer’s information)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for weighing the evidence/manifest miscarriage of justice)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Ohio Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)