State v. Duran
2016 Ohio 5459
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Sept. 28, 2009, Trooper Menges stopped Jose Duran for speeding; while a second trooper completed the citation, Menges had his narcotics dog, Johnny, sniff Duran’s vehicle and alerted at the front passenger area. A subsequent search produced a duffel bag of marijuana in the rear cargo area.
- Duran was indicted for drug possession and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the dog sniff/search exceeded the lawful scope of the stop and raised Miranda concerns. The trial court granted suppression as to the trunk but not the passenger compartment.
- This Court previously reversed, holding the dog’s alert provided probable cause to search the interior compartment, including the space behind the rear seats, and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand Duran supplemented his motion, arguing (1) dog sniffs themselves are searches requiring probable cause, (2) new reliability studies undermine precedent, and (3) the Ohio Constitution (Art. I, §14) should offer greater protection than the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court denied the supplemental motion without a new hearing; Duran pleaded no contest, was convicted and given community control, and appealed the denial-of-hearing decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dog sniff of a lawfully stopped vehicle is a search under Ohio Const. Art. I, §14 | Duran: dog sniffs invade privacy and require reasonable suspicion/probable cause; Ohio Constitution should provide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment | State: Ohio precedent aligns Art. I, §14 with the Fourth Amendment absent persuasive reasons to diverge; Caballes controls | Court: No persuasive reasons shown to afford greater protection; dog sniff during lawful stop not a constitutionally cognizable search under Ohio law as applied here |
| Whether new scientific studies undermine Caballes and justify reinterpreting Art. I, §14 | Duran: new studies show dog unreliability, so dog sniffs should be treated as searches | State: Reliability claims not properly raised on remand/insufficient to overturn precedent | Court: Reliability arguments were not properly before the court; did not provide persuasive reason to depart from federal precedent |
| Whether denial of supplemental motion required an additional suppression hearing on remand | Duran: trial court should have held a hearing on the supplemental motion | State: written submissions were sufficient; no new factual dispute necessitated a hearing | Court: Duran failed to show a hearing was required; denial without hearing was appropriate |
| Whether dog sniff was an unlawful prolongation of traffic stop per Rodriguez | Duran: dog sniff is not an ordinary traffic-stop measure and prolonged the stop without justification | State: sniff did not materially extend detention in this record; sniff during lawful stop permissible | Court: Rodriguez noted sniff is not ordinary but did not make sniffs per se unconstitutional; no persuasive Ohio-level deviation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997) (Ohio Const. Art. I, §14 generally harmonized with Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323 (2003) (Ohio Constitution can provide greater protection than Fourth Amendment for certain warrantless arrests)
- State v. Brown, 143 Ohio St.3d 444 (2015) (Ohio Constitution affords greater protection when officers lack statutory authority to arrest)
- State v. Jones, 88 Ohio St.3d 430 (2000) (reasonableness analysis: historical practice then balancing test)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (dog sniff of exterior of lawfully stopped car is not a Fourth Amendment search)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (technology that obtains details otherwise unknowable implicates Fourth Amendment)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (a dog sniff is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop and cannot unlawfully prolong detention)
- Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (Fourth Amendment does not forbid warrantless arrest for a minor offense)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (framework for assessing search reasonableness and historical practice)