State v. Embry, 2015 Ohio 193

At ~1:30 a.m. two uniformed Springfield police officers in a marked cruiser pulled into a gas station and maneuvered alongside Michael Embry’s car at a pump.
Officers observed a clear plastic bag (described by one as possibly a sandwich bag) partially protruding from Embry’s closed right hand while Embry was leaning toward his passenger side.
Officers exited, repeatedly asked Embry what was in his hand; Embry kept the hand closed and appeared nervous. One officer grabbed Embry’s wrist and forced him to open his hand, revealing three colored, octagonal pills.
Officers collected the pills, advised Embry of Miranda rights (disputed timing), released him, and later obtained a warrant after lab results confirmed the pills were contraband; Embry was convicted of possession.
Embry moved to suppress; the trial court denied the motion without detailed findings. The appellate court reviewed whether the stop/search was a seizure and whether it was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the officers’ approach/interaction a seizure?	Officers: initial approach was consensual questioning.	Embry: the approach, exit from cruiser, close confinement, and repeated questioning constituted a seizure.	Court: It was a seizure — two uniformed officers exiting a marked cruiser in a tight space and repeatedly questioning Embry restrained his liberty.
Was there reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain and search Embry?	Officers: visible baggie in hand in a high‑crime area, furtive movements and concealment supported suspicion.	Embry: mere possession of a sandwich bag at an open gas station is innocent and insufficient for detention/search.	Court: No — the baggie appearance and setting did not supply specific, articulable facts sufficient for Terry stop or forcible search.
Did the officers permissibly seize the bag/contents or obtain admissible statements (Miranda timing)?	Officers: they advised Miranda and elicited identification of pills as Valium.	Embry: Miranda was given after questioning; seizure and subsequent statements were tainted by unlawful stop/search.	Court: Regardless of Miranda timing, the forcible seizure of the arm and contents was unconstitutional because the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; suppression was warranted.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigative stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (consensual encounter vs. seizure; reasonable person test)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (warrantless searches/seizures presumptively unreasonable)
State v. Cosby, 177 Ohio App.3d 670 (2008) (totality of circumstances and reasonable suspicion analysis in Ohio appellate context)
State v. Williams, 51 Ohio St.3d 58 (1990) (seizure occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (1994) (appellate standard: accept trial court factual findings supported by evidence; review legal conclusion de novo)
State v. Clay, 34 Ohio St.2d 250 (1973) (trial court as factfinder on suppression hearings)