2018 Ohio 2455
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Dec. 30, 2016, Mentor PD Officer Bryan Distelrath stopped Michael A. Anderson for not having a front license plate properly displayed; the plate was propped on the dashboard tilted against the windshield and not plainly visible from the roadway.
- Upon approaching the passenger side, Distelrath observed a small amount of marijuana “shake” in several locations inside the vehicle.
- During the traffic stop Distelrath returned to his cruiser, ran Anderson’s records (which revealed prior drug‑related suspensions and a recent marijuana offense), and about six minutes into the stop asked Anderson to exit the vehicle.
- While searching Anderson after removal from the car, the officer detected the odor of burnt marijuana; a subsequent search of the vehicle produced marijuana and paraphernalia.
- Anderson was indicted on trafficking, possessing criminal tools, and paraphernalia counts; he moved to suppress, the trial court denied the motion, he pled no contest, was sentenced, and appealed the suppression denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop for plate display | Officer permissibly stopped Anderson for violating R.C. 4503.21 because the plate was not in plain view | Stop should have ended once officer saw the plate on the dashboard and thus was visible | Stop was valid: plate on dashboard tilted against windshield was not in plain view, so the initial stop was lawful |
| Probable cause for vehicle search | Officer had probable cause based on marijuana shake in plain view, officer’s computer check revealing prior drug history, and later smell of burnt marijuana | Presence of shake alone insufficient to justify search | Probable cause existed under the totality of circumstances (shake in plain view, defendant’s drug history, odor of burnt marijuana, air fresheners), so search was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio 1999) (reasonable‑suspicion stop assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (officer may stop based on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (probable cause defined by facts and circumstances known to officers)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1985) (automobile exception to the warrant requirement)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause to believe car contains contraband permits warrantless search)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925) (foundational automobile search principles)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 2000) (searches generally require probable cause and a warrant absent an exception)