State v. Everett
2019 Ohio 2397
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Police responded to a 10:19 p.m. dispatch that a vehicle had crashed into a building; Officer Jacob found a Chevy Impala pinned between a tree and the building on private property.
- Officer Jacob ordered driver Scott W. Everett to exit; Everett showed delayed compliance, a "blank stare," and appeared confused.
- Officer Jacob handcuffed Everett, had him placed in a patrol cruiser and was briefly searched (pat-down, belt/waist, front pockets); this detention lasted about two minutes before further questioning.
- Officer Jacob smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot/glassy eyes and slurred speech, asked Everett to perform field sobriety tests, and warned he would "just leave the cuffs on" if Everett refused.
- After failing field sobriety tests, Everett was formally arrested, Mirandized, charged with OVI and failure to control, moved to suppress, pled no contest to OVI, and appealed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Everett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial detention, handcuffing, search and placement in cruiser constituted a de facto arrest requiring probable cause | Actions were an investigative detention justified by crash investigation and officer safety; no arrest until after failed FSTs | Handcuffing, search, and placement in cruiser were an arrest without probable cause | Court held detention was a lawful investigative detention under the totality of circumstances; not a de facto arrest |
| Whether officers’ search (pat-down, pockets, waistband) exceeded Terry scope | Search was a protective frisk justified by safety concerns given unusual crash and defendant’s behavior | Pocket/waist search converted detention into an unlawful arrest/search | Court held the limited protective search was reasonable and not unlawful |
| Whether Miranda warnings were required before questioning/field sobriety tests | Roadside questioning and FSTs during an accident investigation are noncustodial and do not trigger Miranda | Everett contends he was in custody when questioned/tested and thus entitled to Miranda warnings | Court held questioning and FSTs did not constitute custodial interrogation; Miranda not required; no incriminating pre-Miranda statements identified |
| Whether nonverbal results of FSTs or pre-Miranda statements must be suppressed | Physical and nonverbal evidence (FSTs) are not protected by privilege; officers relied on observed signs, not compelled statements | Argues suppression required because of custodial interrogation without warnings | Court held FST results are non-testimonial; admissible; no suppression required |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry stop standard: specific and articulable facts required for investigative detention)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings protect against compelled self-incrimination during custodial interrogation)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (roadside questioning during traffic stops is ordinarily noncustodial for Miranda purposes)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (community-caretaking doctrine permits certain noninvestigatory police actions at vehicle scenes)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (officer may order driver out of vehicle for safety during a traffic stop)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (de facto arrests require probable cause when restraint is tantamount to arrest)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (warrantless public-arrest analysis)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (distinguishing testimonial statements from physical evidence)
- Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (non-testimonial real/physical evidence not protected by Fifth Amendment)
- State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (under Ohio Constitution, statements made in custody without Miranda may require exclusion)
- State v. Henderson, 51 Ohio St.3d 54 (nonverbal results of FSTs are not testimonial)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)