State v. Carson, 2015 Ohio 4110

On Jan. 28, 2014 Dayton officers stopped Jeffrey Carson's SUV for alleged excessive side-window tint; a citation for tint was later issued.
After cruiser lights activated, Carson exited the vehicle and began walking away into an apartment-complex parking area that officers described as largely vacant and high-crime.
Officer Speelman ordered Carson to stop; Carson was argumentative, kept looking around as if to flee, and repeatedly declined or avoided answering whether he was armed.
Speelman grabbed Carson, had him place his hands on the vehicle, and conducted a pat-down; he felt currency and then a hard metal object he immediately recognized as a firearm tucked into Carson’s waistband.
Gun recovered, Carson handcuffed, Mirandized, requested counsel, then pled no contest to carrying a concealed weapon; he appealed, contending the frisk violated the Fourth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the initial traffic stop lawful?	Stop lawful: officers observed excessive tint and issued citation.	Stop unlawful or credibility questionable because of testimony inconsistencies.	Stop lawful — officers observed a tint violation and issued a ticket.
Did officers have reasonable suspicion to conduct a weapons frisk?	Yes: Carson’s walking away after lights, scanning behavior, argumentative responses, failure to answer about weapons, and high-crime location justified frisk.	No: Carson’s conduct didn’t amount to flight or specific facts showing he was armed; totality didn’t support reasonable, articulable suspicion.	Frisk lawful under Terry — totality of circumstances gave reasonable officer belief of danger.
Was the pat-down limited to a weapons frisk and lawful evidence-gathering?	Yes: officer felt object that was immediately recognizable as a gun; no manipulation beyond recognition.	No specific counter that the encounter was a fishing expedition.	Court found pat-down properly limited and admissible; no Fourth Amendment violation.
Did suppression hearing require crediting cruiser video over officers’ testimony?	N/A (State relied on officers’ testimony plus video)	Argued inconsistencies and limited view on video undermined officer credibility.	Trial court credited officers; appellate court deferred to credibility findings and affirmed.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (stop-and-frisk standard for reasonable, articulable suspicion)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (definition of seizure and Fourth Amendment implications)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (warrant requirement and privacy expectations)
State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (totality-of-circumstances view from officer’s perspective)
State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (pat-down justified only with reasonable suspicion suspect is armed)