State v. Brown
2021 Ohio 3078
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Patrolman Cook followed a silver Nissan driven by Gregory Brown and observed it turn right into the leftmost westbound lane and stop beyond the stop bar, reportedly in the crosswalk.
- Cook initiated a traffic stop, smelled a strong odor of marijuana, and learned the car was a rental driven by someone not authorized to operate it; the vehicle was towed and inventoried.
- Based on the odor, Cook searched the vehicle and found a baggie of suspected crack cocaine under the driver’s seat, a scale with white residue, and marijuana; Brown was arrested and charged.
- Brown was indicted on two counts of possession of cocaine (felony 5) and one count of possession/use of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor 4) with forfeiture specifications.
- Brown moved to suppress, arguing the traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion and probable cause; the trial court denied the motion, Brown pleaded no contest, and was sentenced to two years community control concurrent on each count.
- On appeal Brown challenged the denial of the suppression motion; the court affirmed, finding a lawful stop based on observed traffic violations.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Brown's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by a stop-bar/stop-sign violation? | State: Officer observed Brown stop past the stop bar/in the crosswalk, giving probable cause to stop. | Brown: Wickliffe ordinance cited by officer conflicts with R.C. 4511.43(A), so no valid stop-bar violation. | Court: Ordinance cited (W.C.O. 331.18) concerns yield signs and is inapplicable; the relevant Wickliffe stop-sign ordinance mirrors R.C. 4511.43(A). Stop-bar finding upheld. |
| Could the officer reliably observe the stop-bar violation (position/darkness)? | State: Officer was close (about 1.5 car lengths behind), familiar with area, and testified he saw the violation. | Brown: Officer was behind the vehicle and it was after sunset, so visibility was unreliable. | Court: Trial court credited officer’s testimony; no record contradiction. Observation deemed credible and supported by evidence. |
| Was the improper right turn a violation under R.C. 4511.36(A) (turn into curb lane practicable)? | State: Driver must turn as close as practicable to the right curb; photos showed no obstruction, so Brown should have turned into curb lane. | Brown: Law doesn’t absolutely require turning into curb lane; state didn’t prove it was practicable. | Court: Statute requires turn as close as practicable absent obstruction; photos showed no obstruction, so turn violation upheld. |
| Did either traffic violation alone justify the stop and subsequent search? | State: Yes—either violation provided lawful basis for the stop; odor of marijuana provided probable cause to search. | Brown: No—no valid traffic violation, so stop and ensuing search were unlawful. | Court: Either violation would justify the stop; officer smelled marijuana, giving probable cause to search. Suppression denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 110 Ohio St.3d 152 (2006) (trial court is best positioned to resolve factual questions and witness credibility on suppression motions)
- State v. Guysinger, 86 Ohio App.3d 592 (4th Dist. 1993) (appellate courts accept trial-court factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence)
- State v. Curry, 95 Ohio App.3d 93 (8th Dist. 1994) (appellate court independently reviews whether trial-court facts meet legal standards)