State v. Chapman
131 N.E.3d 1036
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. on July 4, 2017, Deputy Carpenter stopped a car for a license-plate/tag issue; appellant Chapman was front-seat passenger. Deputy Carpenter had probable cause for the traffic stop.
- During the stop Chapman made a brief forward movement toward the floorboard, appeared nervous, and his zipper was observed open; dispatch checks were run and backup was requested.
- About eight minutes into the stop, Deputy Carpenter’s certified narcotics dog (Hyra) sniffed the vehicle and alerted at the passenger-side door. The dog’s alert provided probable cause to search the vehicle.
- After the alert, deputies removed and pat-searched occupants. Carpenter ordered Chapman to remove his shoes (not searching for weapons) and found baggies containing cocaine and heroin inside Chapman’s left shoe; Chapman was arrested and later pleaded no contest to drug charges.
- Chapman moved to suppress the shoe evidence; the trial court denied suppression. On appeal the Seventh District reversed, holding (1) the canine sniff did not unlawfully extend the stop, but (2) the dog alert plus the recorded circumstances did not establish probable cause to conduct a full search of Chapman’s person (shoes). The court remanded.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Chapman’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dog sniff unlawfully extended the traffic stop | Dog sniff occurred before the stop’s mission was complete; eight minutes was reasonable | Sniff unlawfully extended the stop absent reasonable suspicion | Sniff did not unlawfully extend the stop (stop incomplete; eight minutes reasonable) |
| Whether a canine alert on the vehicle provided probable cause to search the vehicle occupants | A reliable dog alert supplies probable cause to search occupants (dog + circumstances) | A canine alert alone is insufficient to search a person; search of shoes exceeded Terry pat-down | Canine alert alone insufficient to establish probable cause to search occupant’s person; here totality did not yield probable cause to search shoes |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of Chapman’s shoes | Exigent circumstances (risk of destruction/mobility of narcotics at roadside) made immediate search reasonable | No specific evidence of imminent destruction; warrant required absent probable cause | Moot—court did not reach exigency (found no probable cause); assignment dismissed as moot |
| Standard for reviewing warrantless searches | State relied on officer testimony and dog reliability; trial court credited findings | Chapman challenged de novo legal determination of probable cause | Appellate court applied de novo review to warrantless-search legality after accepting trial-court facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (warrantless-search legal determinations reviewed de novo)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (traffic stop cannot be prolonged beyond mission to conduct dog sniff absent reasonable suspicion)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (courts assess canine-alert reliability under the totality of the circumstances for probable cause to search a vehicle)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff during lawful traffic stop generally not Fourth Amendment search)
- Di Re v. People of State of Ill., 332 U.S. 581 (1948) (presence in a searched vehicle is not alone sufficient to search a person)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (probable cause to search a vehicle can justify searching containers belonging to passengers, but searches of a person receive heightened protection)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is a common-sense, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (limited protective frisk for weapons during investigatory stop)