State v. Farrey
2013 Ohio 4263
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On March 28, 2012, two SNUD officers working marked patrol observed three people and two cars in an otherwise-empty lot after responding to drug complaints.
- Officers observed Farrey turn, reach into his right front pocket, walk to the rear of a car, bend and make a throwing motion, then return and loudly confront the officers.
- Officer Nida approached and during a pat-down saw a baggie of marijuana partially protruding from Farrey’s right pocket; officers detained the others.
- Detective Male searched under the car where Farrey had made the throwing motion and found baggies of heroin and crack cocaine.
- Farrey was indicted for possession of heroin and cocaine (felonies) and marijuana (minor misdemeanor); jury convicted on the felonies and court convicted on the marijuana; cash in Farrey’s pocket was ordered forfeited.
- Farrey appealed, arguing (1) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to move to suppress (Terry stop and scope issues) and (2) that the felony convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Farrey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop (Terry) | Officers observed suspicious conduct in a high-drug-activity area; their training and the observed throwing motion and visible marijuana created reasonable suspicion. | Officers lacked specific and articulable facts to justify a Terry stop; counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress. | Court held officers had reasonable suspicion based on location, training, Farrey’s movements, and visible marijuana; no ineffective assistance for failure to move to suppress. |
| Whether discovery/seizure of cash exceeded Terry search scope and required suppression | Even if pat-down exceeded Terry scope, the cash would have been inevitably discovered during a search incident to arrest after drugs under the car gave probable cause. | Cash was not plainly contraband and exceeded the protective scope of a Terry frisk; counsel ineffective for not seeking suppression. | Court held inevitable discovery applied: probable cause existed after drugs were found under the car, so cash admissible; no ineffective assistance. |
| Whether convictions for possession of heroin and cocaine are against the manifest weight of the evidence | Testimony of two officers placed Farrey at scene, observed the throwing motion, saw protruding marijuana, and recovered drugs where he threw them — supports convictions. | Drugs could have been dropped earlier or by someone else; jury lost its way. | Court held the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury’s verdicts were reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Terry stop reasonable-suspicion standard)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-feel doctrine limits pat-down seizure of contraband)
- State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (factors for reasonable suspicion in investigatory stops)
- State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193 (1985) (inevitable discovery doctrine allows admission of otherwise-illegal evidence if it would have been found lawfully)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review)