State v. Alim
100 N.E.3d 1119
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 10, 2016, an anonymous 911 caller reported possible drug sales by two men in a black Chevy Blazer at a strip mall (Perkins Plaza); caller said one man wore a white T‑shirt and the vehicle had a temporary tag.
- Bedford Heights Officer Lee Ester parked his marked cruiser behind the SUV, approached on foot in uniform (no lights/siren, no gun drawn) and smelled marijuana emanating from the vehicle as he reached the driver’s door.
- Officer Ester asked for IDs and called dispatch; two men standing outside had outstanding warrants and were handcuffed. Officers waited for backup before removing vehicle occupants.
- When Officer Jeremy Blackstone arrived, he observed the passenger make a furtive movement under the seat; he removed the passenger, recovered cash and a scale from under the passenger seat, and confirmed a strong marijuana odor on body‑cam video.
- Officers subsequently searched the SUV and recovered multiple controlled substances and paraphernalia. Defendants moved to suppress; the trial court granted suppression. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial approach was a seizure | Officer’s approach was a consensual encounter (no lights/siren, no show of force) | Approach became a seizure because occupants were not free to leave once officer parked behind them | Court: Initial approach was consensual, not a seizure |
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion/probable cause after approach | Smell of marijuana provided probable cause to detain and search vehicle and occupants under automobile/plain smell doctrines | Anonymous tip was uncorroborated; officers lacked justification to detain/search | Court: Smell of marijuana (corroborated on video by admission) gave probable cause; search justified |
| Whether search of passenger/under‑seat area was lawful | Officer saw furtive movement and smelled marijuana, justifying removal/search for safety and evidence | Furtive movement and tip insufficient without corroboration | Court: Did not need furtive movement — probable cause from marijuana odor alone justified search |
| Whether suppression of evidence was required | Evidence seized after probable cause; suppression erroneous | Evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment merited suppression | Court: Reversed suppression; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (trial court findings of fact reviewed for clear error; appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (searches and seizures under Fourth Amendment require probable cause/warrant absent an exception)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule for evidence from unreasonable searches)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (investigative stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (consensual encounters are not seizures if a person is free to decline or end the encounter)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (smell of marijuana by a qualified officer alone can establish probable cause to search a vehicle)