2018 Ohio 2029
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Jan. 30, 2014 a rental vehicle traveling in the center lane of a three‑lane section of the Ohio Turnpike was stopped by Trooper Alejo Romero after pacing it at 66–69 mph where the posted limit was 70 mph. The trooper intended only to issue a warning.
- Romero testified he stopped the vehicle to enforce Ohio Adm.Code 5537‑2‑09 (Turnpike lane rule) and R.C. 4511.25(B) (stay‑right rule). He believed the vehicle was traveling below the posted speed in the center lane.
- After the stop two troopers assessed the interior. Trooper Beidelschies allegedly observed "raw marijuana flakes" in the passenger door, ordered appellant (a passenger) out, frisked him, searched the car, and found ≈21 pounds of cannabis in the trunk.
- Appellant was indicted for possession and trafficking of cannabis. He moved to suppress; the trial court denied suppression. Appellant pleaded no contest, was sentenced to 12 months, and appealed.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the traffic regulation conflicted with the statute and the stop and subsequent search/seizure were unlawful; it remanded and ordered costs to appellee.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether stopping a car for going 69 mph in a 70 mph zone in the center lane violated the Fourth Amendment | Stop unlawful: no probable cause or reasonable suspicion because vehicle traveled at prevailing speed | Stop lawful: trooper observed violation of Ohio Adm.Code 5537‑2‑09 and R.C. 4511.25(B) | Reversed: stop was not supported because Adm.Code conflicted with R.C. 4511.25(B) and vehicle was traveling at prevailing speed |
| 2. Whether Ohio Adm.Code 5537‑2‑09 is facially unconstitutionally vague | Regulation vague on its face and cannot support stops | Regulation provides clear proscription and fair warning | Declined to decide facial challenge (addressed as‑applied) |
| 3. Whether Ohio Adm.Code 5537‑2‑09 is unconstitutionally vague as applied here | As‑applied: rule confused drivers; signage and statutory language created ambiguity | Regulation applied properly to justify stop | Held: as‑applied vagueness established; regulation conflicts with statute and confused reasonable drivers |
| 4. Whether officers had reasonable suspicion/probable cause to search and seize after the stop | Post‑stop search was an unconstitutional fishing expedition (no lawful basis) | Officers observed indicia of criminality (rental car, multiple phones, nervousness, deodorizer smell, marijuana flakes) justifying investigatory search and seizure | Reversed on additional ground: even if stop were lawful, totality of circumstances did not justify custodial search/seizure; exceptions (plain view, independent source, inevitable discovery) inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1979) (traffic stops require probable cause or reasonable suspicion)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (de minimis traffic violations can justify stops)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (evidence from unlawful searches/seizures must be suppressed)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (standards for investigatory stops and frisks)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (warrant requirement framing)
- Hoffman v. State Med. Bd., 113 Ohio St.3d 376 (Ohio 2007) (administrative rule invalid if it conflicts with statute)
- State v. Carter, 69 Ohio St.3d 57 (Ohio 1994) (passengers have standing to challenge vehicle stops)
- State v. Grubbs, 80 N.E.3d 1075 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (minor‑misdemeanor drug evidence does not justify full custodial search)