State v. Allen, 2021 Ohio 3047

Two separate stops of Michael Rayshawn Allen in Dayton, Ohio: (1) Sept. 18, 2018 — officers observed Allen jaywalk near a Shell station in a high‑crime area; after running his ID an officer patted him down and recovered a loaded SCCY 9mm from his pocket; (2) Jan. 19, 2019 — officers approached a parked Mercedes after an alleged reversing maneuver; while speaking with the driver they looked through the window and observed a Taurus 9mm on the rear floorboard in plain view.
Allen told officers in the first encounter he had taken a concealed‑carry class but had no license; the officers’ computer check showed a prior arrest for carrying a concealed weapon (no convictions reported).
Allen moved to suppress the weapons and his statements in both cases, arguing the stops/detention and the pat‑down were unlawful and his statements involuntary/Miranda‑defective.
The trial court denied the suppression motions; Allen was convicted by juries in separate trials and placed on community control.
On appeal Allen challenged (1) the legality of the frisk/pat‑down (2018 case) and (2) the legality of the traffic/vehicle stop (2019 case); the appellate court affirmed both suppression denials.

Issue	State's Argument	Allen's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of pat‑down after jaywalking stop (2018)	Stop for jaywalking lawful; officer developed individualized reasonable suspicion to frisk based on prior weapons arrest plus high‑crime area	No suspicious conduct beyond jaywalking; cooperative and produced ID; pat‑down was not supported by reasonable articulable suspicion	Stop lawful for jaywalking; pat‑down reasonable because officer learned of prior weapons arrest and area risk, so frisk upheld
Lawfulness of approach/stop and seizure of firearm in parked car (2019)	Officers lawfully approached (consensual encounter); officer saw firearm in plain view through window, justifying seizure and further action	Officer testimony insufficient to show a traffic violation or reasonable suspicion to stop; cruiser video did not show the alleged backing offense	Approach was a consensual encounter; firearm was in plain view through the window, so suppression denial was proper

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (established stop‑and‑frisk standard requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion for limited protective searches)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is the controlling inquiry)
State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (appellate review accepts trial court’s factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence)
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (probable cause not required for a traffic stop; reasonable, articulable suspicion suffices)
Kansas v. Glover, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (reasonable suspicion/probable‑cause standards explained; officer may rely on inferences but hunch insufficient)
State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (limited protective pat‑down permitted when officer reasonably believes suspect may be armed)
State v. Ewing, 95 N.E.3d 1112 (presence in high‑crime area alone insufficient to justify frisk)
State v. Taylor, 106 Ohio App.3d 741 (consensual encounter vs. seizure analysis)