State v. Dorsey
2019 Ohio 3478
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Trooper Lewis stopped Dorsey for speeding (65 mph in a 55 zone) on March 25, 2017.
- On initial contact he observed Dorsey’s pants were undone; he asked her to exit the vehicle.
- Lewis asked to pat Dorsey down for weapons; during the pat-down he felt a “hard” object in her pants.
- Dorsey objected and requested a female officer; none were available and she denied having anything.
- Lewis continued the pat-down and then transported Dorsey to the patrol post; a later search produced large quantities of illegal drugs.
- Dorsey moved to suppress; the trial court granted suppression, concluding Lewis could not lawfully order Dorsey out of the car and had no safety justification for the pat-down. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May officer lawfully order driver out of vehicle after valid traffic stop? | Mimms authorizes ordering driver out of vehicle during lawful stop; no additional suspicion required. | Trial court: officer lacked authority to order Dorsey out. | Court of Appeals: officer could order Dorsey out; trial court erred on this point. |
| May officer conduct a limited pat-down for weapons after driver exits? | Once driver exits, officer may pat-down if reasonably believes driver might be armed and dangerous; safety justifies pat-down at traffic stops. | Trial court: officer did not articulate safety concerns to justify pat-down. | Court: remanded for further analysis because trial court’s initial Mimms error may have tainted its pat-down analysis; court did not finally resolve pat-down reasonableness. |
| Was consent to pat-down present? | Officer: Dorsey acquiesced to pat-down. | Dorsey: did not verbally consent and later objected and demanded female officer. | Court did not resolve consent issue; remanded for trial court to reassess credibility and legal application. |
| Should suppression be affirmed? | State: suppression was error given Mimms and related authority. | Dorsey: suppression proper because exit and pat-down were unlawful. | Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic stop reasonable if probable cause of violation)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable stops/searches)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (officer may order driver out of vehicle during lawful stop)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (officer may perform limited pat-down if reasonably suspects driver might be armed and dangerous)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (warrantless searches/seizures are per se unreasonable absent exception)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (probable cause justifies traffic stop)
- State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (Mimms order need not be based on constitutional quantum of suspicion)