2011 Ohio 5255
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Carroll was indicted on three counts: drug trafficking, drug possession, and possessing criminal tools, with three forfeiture specifications.
- Carroll moved to suppress the evidence obtained after police entered the Togo Lounge and questioned him.
- Officers arrested a separate suspect in a parking lot drugs case and learned the suspect claimed a person named Bobo owned the drugs; Bobo was described to resemble Carroll.
- Police approached Carroll inside the lounge, and repeated requests to place hands on the bar were followed by a pat-down when crucial movements suggested possible weapons or contraband.
- The pat-down yielded 55 grams of cocaine, a pocket scale, and $200; Carroll challenged the stop and search as unlawful.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion; Carroll pled no contest; the court sentenced him and approved the appeal on the suppression issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop and pat-down were lawful. | State: officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to investigate Carroll. | Carroll: stop/search lacked justification and the pat-down was unlawful. | Stop and pat-down upheld; suppression denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established warrantless-search limits; the text discusses Fourth Amendment baseline)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permits brief detentions and pat-downs with reasonable suspicion of danger)
- State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988) (articulates totality-of-circumstances approach for stops)
- State v. LeClair, 2006-Ohio-4958 (Ohio 2006) (applies Terry framework to evaluate stop/search)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 71 (2003) (reaffirms standards for evaluating suppression motions)