Background
- Officer Kelly Moran followed and stopped a truck leaving a suspected drug house for an excessively loud muffler; occupant Michael Bramley was the front-seat passenger.
- Moran obtained driver’s and passenger’s IDs, relayed them to the Drug Task Force, and requested a canine unit; the canine sniffed the truck but did not give a positive alert.
- After verbally warning the driver about the muffler and telling him he was free to go, Moran asked the driver several questions and requested consent to search the truck; the driver eventually consented.
- Moran removed Bramley, questioned him about a furtive movement; Bramley admitted hiding an open container and then consented to a search of his person.
- Moran found crack cocaine in Bramley’s pocket; Bramley was arrested roughly 20 minutes after the stop.
- At the suppression hearing the trial court granted Bramley’s motion, finding the detention became unlawful after the canine failed to alert and Bramley’s consent involuntary; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bramley's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continued questioning after the canine failed to alert converted the stop into an unlawful detention | Moran’s questioning was part of a permissible brief extension and he had not coerced anyone; occupants were told they were free to go | Continued questioning after the stop’s purpose was complete unlawfully prolonged the detention | Court: Continued detention was unlawful once the canine failed to alert and driver was told he was free to go |
| Whether Bramley’s consent to a search of his person was voluntary | Consent was given freely and cooperatively; Moran did not threaten, touch, or display a weapon | Consent was not voluntary because detention had become coercive (lights, multiple cruisers, questioning) | Court: Consent was voluntary under totality; reasonable person could have felt free to refuse and leave |
| Whether reasonable suspicion supported continuing the detention and searching Bramley | Alternatively, reasonable suspicion existed based on furtive movement, known identification to task force, and canine interest | No additional articulable facts emerged after canine failed to alert to justify continued detention | Court: No reasonable suspicion arose from driver’s answers or Moran’s observations to justify prolonged detention |
| Whether suppression of the cocaine was required | Evidence admissible because consent was voluntary despite prior unlawful detention | Evidence should be suppressed because consent was the product of an unlawful, coercive detention | Court: Trial court erred to suppress; conviction evidence admissible and case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (appellate review of suppression is mixed question of law and fact)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (officer may briefly ask about contraband; consent can validate otherwise illegal detention)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (traffic-stop tasks must be completed before extending seizure)
- Illinois v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (consent is more than submission to authority)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (trial court as factfinder for suppression hearings)
- State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71 (appellate courts accept factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence)
- State v. Carter, 69 Ohio St.3d 57 (passenger’s freedom of movement equally affected during vehicle stop)