State v. Anderson
2016 Ohio 7269
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On June 20, 2014 a Franklin County grand jury indicted Aaron M. Anderson for carrying a concealed weapon (R.C. 2923.12) and having a weapon while under disability (R.C. 2923.13) after police found a gun on him outside a house.
- Officer Lease responded to a dispatched domestic-violence call reporting a knife and a taser; the dispatch described a white male (the son) and possibly others involved.
- Upon arrival Lease observed a white male by a truck and then saw Anderson (a black male) leave the porch, turn when he saw officers, and then walk away; Lease ordered Anderson to approach and detained him when a bleeding woman came out of the house frantically pointing and saying “it’s him.”
- Before a frisk, Lease asked Anderson about weapons and Anderson admitted he had a gun in his pocket; Anderson moved to suppress the gun arguing the stop and pat-down were unlawful.
- The trial court denied suppression; Anderson entered no contest pleas to both counts and appealed the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Anderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the investigatory stop supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion? | Dispatch plus Anderson leaving the porch, evasive walking, and the victim pointing supported reasonable suspicion. | Anderson did not match the suspect description; leaving the porch and walking away is not necessarily criminal. | Held: Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances. |
| Was a pat-down for weapons justified? | Dispatch reported a knife and taser; combined with the scene and victim’s conduct, officer reasonably suspected a person on scene could be armed. | No visible bulge or indication of a weapon; lack of matching description undermines any belief he was armed. | Held: Pat-down was justified by reasonable suspicion that Anderson might be armed and dangerous. |
| Should officer credibility discrepancies defeat suppression ruling? | Officer’s testimony was admissible and the trial court may rely on it despite minor inconsistencies. | Discrepancies between dispatch notes, report, and testimony undermine credibility. | Held: Discrepancies did not render testimony non-credible as a matter of law; court could credit the officer. |
| Did the trial court properly analyze stop vs. frisk? | Trial court sufficiently considered the dispatch, victim’s behavior, and scene; its conclusion implied both reasonable suspicion for the stop and for a pat-down. | Trial court failed to separately analyze stop and pat-down standards. | Held: Trial court’s reasoning treated the two inquiries separately enough; analysis was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may stop/detain on reasonable, articulable suspicion and conduct limited protective frisk if suspect may be armed)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; scope of exceptions)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is context-dependent)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (reasonable suspicion evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (view stops through the eyes of a reasonable, cautious officer)
- State v. Kinney, 83 Ohio St.3d 85 (1998) (Ohio and federal constitutions protect against unreasonable searches)
- State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993) (pat-down requires reasonable suspicion that suspect is armed and dangerous)
- State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71 (2006) (appellate review of suppression is mixed question of law and fact)