2022 Ohio 3279
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Early morning arrest attempt at defendant Samantha Fenter’s father’s home to execute felony warrants for Fenter and Lauro Sanchez.
- Deputies in uniform told Sanchez and then Fenter there were arrest warrants; when deputies instructed Fenter to turn around to be handcuffed, she fled through an open doorway into the house.
- Sergeant McCabe pursued about 30 feet into the residence and observed Fenter discard a small plastic baggie; the baggie later tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Fenter moved to suppress the methamphetamine, arguing the arrest was unlawful because deputies failed to promptly inform her of the charges (Crim.R. 4(D)(3)/Sixth Amendment) and that the warrantless entry/search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- Trial court denied the suppression motion after an evidentiary hearing (bodycam footage corroborated deputies); Fenter pleaded no contest and appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed: (1) Crim.R. 4(D)(3) and Sixth Amendment not violated because delay in informing Fenter was caused by defendants’ resistance and conduct; (2) hot pursuit/exigent circumstances justified entry and seizure.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Fenter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputies violated Crim.R.4(D)(3)/Sixth Amendment by not promptly informing Fenter of the nature of the charges | Deputies gave notice as soon as practicable; delay was caused by defendants’ flight/resistance and officer need not have warrant physically present | Officers failed to inform her promptly; arrest therefore unlawful and evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree | Reversed argument — court held rule not violated: defendants’ conduct caused delay; officers complied as required, so no suppression on this ground |
| Whether warrantless entry into home to effect arrest and subsequent seizure violated Fourth Amendment | Warrant existed; Fenter fled into the home after being told of the warrant, so officers were in hot pursuit and exigent circumstances justified entry and seizure | Officers created exigency by failing to inform her of the charges; thus entry was unlawful and evidence must be suppressed | Held for State — hot pursuit/exigency justified warrantless entry and seizure; evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (appellate review of suppression: accept trial court factual findings if supported; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545 (trial court is finder of fact at suppression hearing)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (appellate courts accept trial court’s factual findings when supported)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Fourth Amendment and Ohio Const. protections against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless entry into home to make an arrest requires probable cause plus exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (officer in hot pursuit may follow suspect into home; retreat to private place does not defeat arrest)
- Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (hot pursuit/exigent circumstances exception to warrant requirement)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (two-part test for a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (society-recognized reasonable expectation of privacy test)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (Fourth Amendment bars only unreasonable searches/seizures)
- United States v. Macdonald, 916 F.2d 766 (totality-of-circumstances test for exigent circumstances)