2019 Ohio 3160
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On June 2, 2016, two uniformed Columbus police officers in a marked cruiser observed Brown and another man standing outside a suspected drug house; both men looked away when officers arrived.
- Officers exited the cruiser and asked whether either man lived in the house; both said no. Brown began walking away slowly.
- Officer Bateman followed Brown ~10–12 feet; observed Brown with a clenched hand and plastic protruding, asked what was in the hand, and Brown partially opened his hand showing a plastic bag.
- Bateman saw what he suspected was heroin in the bag, seized it, and arrested Brown.
- Brown moved to suppress the evidence and statements; the trial court denied the motion, finding the encounter was consensual until Brown displayed the contraband, then there was probable cause. Brown pleaded no contest and received community control.
- Brown appealed, arguing the encounter was an illegal seizure requiring reasonable suspicion under Terry and that the State failed to prove otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial police-citizen encounter was consensual or a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion | Officers merely initiated a consensual encounter in a public place; no show of force or commands occurred | A reasonable person would not feel free to leave given officers' presence, follow, and questioning, so it was an investigatory stop without reasonable suspicion | The encounter was consensual until Brown opened his hand and showed contraband; no unlawful seizure occurred |
| Whether police developed probable cause before arrest | Once contraband was observed in plain view during a consensual encounter, officers had probable cause to seize and arrest | Contends any evidence obtained flowed from an illegal stop and must be suppressed | Observation of suspected heroin in plain view provided probable cause for arrest |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside, State v., 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (explaining standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
- Mills, State v., 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (trial court as factfinder on suppression hearings; credibility determinations)
- Fanning, State v., 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (support for accepting trial-court factual findings on appeal)
- McNamara, State v., 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (appellate court explains independent review of legal conclusions)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishing investigatory stop standard requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)