State v. Borum
2014 Ohio 5639
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On July 6, 2013 Akron police received a citizen call that a man named “Daryl” in a black Mercury with a stripe had flashed a gun at a neighbor on West Exchange Street; the caller gave a name, address, and phone number and reported the incident immediately after it occurred.
- Officer Stewart, already in the area, observed a vehicle matching the description and attempted a traffic stop; the driver (Borum) initially ignored the signal, drove into a driveway, and then exited the vehicle quickly.
- After Borum exited and questioned the stop, officers conducted a brief pat-down of Borum and a male officer performed a more thorough frisk.
- While one officer called the informant and another checked the vehicle for weapons, Officer Means noticed an unusually heavy green gym bag on the front passenger seat, opened it, and found guns, ammunition, and money.
- Borum was arrested, moved to no contest pleas after the court denied his motion to suppress, and was sentenced to a suspended 12-month incarceration term with two years community control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Borum: stop was unsupported; tip was unreliable and insufficient | State: citizen informant provided identifying info, eyewitness account, immediacy, and matching car observed nearby | Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion and lawful |
| Whether pat-down/frisk of Borum was lawful | Borum: officers lacked cause to frisk him | State: Borum’s evasive conduct, sudden exit, and the tip about a firearm justified officer safety frisk | Frisk was reasonable under Terry and permissible |
| Whether protective search of the vehicle (areas Borum vacated) was lawful | Borum: officers lacked authority to search vehicle without probable cause | State: concern Borum could return to vehicle and access a weapon justified limited vehicle search under Long | Vehicle search limited to weapon-accessible areas was reasonable and lawful |
| Whether evidence discovered should have been suppressed | Borum: evidence was product of unlawful stop/search | State: searches were lawful; evidence admissible | Motion to suppress properly denied; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard for appellate review of suppression findings)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (trial court as factfinder on suppression)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (1999) (citizen informant tips can establish reasonable suspicion; eyewitness and immediacy increase reliability)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (stop-and-frisk standard: officer safety justifies limited pat-down)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990) (reliability and content of tips relevant to reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (1991) (give weight to officer training/experience and view facts as officers would)
- State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (permissible protective searches of vehicles incident to stop when officer reasonably believes suspect armed)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) (weapons search justified on officer safety grounds)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (vehicle compartment search limited to areas where weapon could be placed justified if officer reasonably believes suspect dangerous)