State v. Cross
2014 Ohio 1534
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Dayton officer stopped Dkarl Cross for having no front license plate in a high‑crime area; Cross was in a McDonald’s drive‑through and told the officer he had no driver's license.
- Officer asked if Cross had anything on his person that would concern officers; testimony conflicted on exact timing of the question, a pat‑down, and when handcuffs were applied.
- Cross told the officer there was a bag of marijuana in his pocket and a gun in the car; officers recovered a firearm from the driver’s door pocket and arrested Cross.
- Cross moved to suppress his statements and the firearm on Miranda and Fourth Amendment grounds; the trial court denied the motion.
- Cross pled no contest to Carrying a Concealed Weapon and Improper Handling of a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle (both fourth‑degree felonies) and appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed whether Cross was "in custody" for Miranda purposes when the question was asked and whether any trial‑court evidentiary ruling affected the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cross) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cross was "in custody" such that Miranda warnings were required before the officer's question that elicited admission of a gun in the car | Question was a safety‑related inquiry and, even if not, a reasonable person would not have felt in custody; warnings not required | Cross contends his circumstances (pat‑down, handcuffing, controlled by officer) made the encounter the functional equivalent of arrest, so warnings were required | Court held Cross was not in custody when asked; Miranda warnings were not required and statement admissible |
| Whether the firearm and other evidence should be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful custodial interrogation/search | State contended no Miranda violation; alternatively, firearm inevitably would be discovered during tow/inventory | Cross argued the statement led to discovery and should be suppressed because it was the product of custodial interrogation without warnings | Because no Miranda violation, suppression of the firearm was not required; evidence admissible |
| Whether excluding Cross’s testimony about arranging alternative vehicle removal (inevitable discovery) was reversible error | State objected to the testimony as beyond scope; maintained it was unnecessary because no Miranda violation | Cross argued excluded testimony bore on inevitable discovery and could have saved the firearm evidence if Miranda had been violated | Any error in excluding that testimony was harmless because the court found no Miranda violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (constitutional requirement to give warnings before custodial interrogation)
- State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (Ohio 2006) (totality of officers’ conduct can create functional equivalent of arrest for Miranda purposes)
- State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780 (Ohio App. 2007) (officer‑safety question exception to Miranda does not extend to open‑ended questions; factual circumstances can transform stop into custody)