State v. Fletcher
2017 Ohio 1006
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Feb. 20, 2016, Officer Dearing investigated reports of narcotics activity at Room 6 of the Green Crest Motel; three vehicles were parked outside, one occupied by Daniel Davis who admitted to having meth.
- Dearing approached Room 6 for a "knock and talk," observed the door ajar ~12 inches, saw Donnie sitting by a large stack of cash, pushed the door fully open to visually clear the room for officer safety, then asked occupants to step out.
- Donnie, appellant Deanna Fletcher, and their daughter gave written consent to search the motel room and a silver GMC truck; officers found methamphetamine (total 17.4 g), scales, baggies, pipes, $910, clonazepam tablets, and firearms/ammunition (guns found in truck).
- Appellant was indicted on aggravated trafficking (R.C. 2925.03), aggravated possession (R.C. 2925.11), and possession of clonazepam (misdemeanor). She moved to suppress evidence, arguing the door push-open was an unconstitutional threshold crossing without a warrant or exigency.
- Trial court denied the suppression motion; after a bench trial appellant was convicted on all counts (firearm specs dismissed), sentenced to concurrent terms; on appeal the court affirmed convictions but found plain error for failure to merge the trafficking and possession convictions and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of officer pushing open motel-room door during knock-and-talk (Fourth Amendment) | Officer acted reasonably for officer safety given tip of narcotics activity, occupied/running cars outside, passenger admitting meth, occupant with large cash; exigent circumstances and probable cause justified limited visual entry | Pushed through the residential threshold without warrant or exigent circumstances; this violated Fourth Amendment and tainted subsequent consent/search | Denial of suppression affirmed: totality of circumstances gave probable cause and exigency for limited visual intrusion; no plain-view observation occurred and consent to search was voluntary |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence for aggravated trafficking (complicity) | Presence of meth paraphernalia, 17.4 g meth total, multiple cellphones, admissions by Donnie and statements by appellant (driving for pickups/deliveries) support complicity to traffic | Appellant argued lack of proof she knowingly participated in trafficking and pointed to disputed allocation of specific baggies | Conviction affirmed: evidence (circumstantial and admissions) sufficed to prove constructive possession and complicity |
| Sufficiency/weight of evidence for aggravated possession of methamphetamine | Meth found in multiple locations in shared room, paraphernalia throughout, appellant admitted use and driving for purchases/deliveries | Appellant claimed drugs were on husband’s side and she lacked control/knowledge over all items | Conviction affirmed: constructive possession shown by proximity, accessibility, and appellant's conduct/admissions |
| Merger of allied offenses (trafficking vs. possession) | State relied on aggregate quantity from same conduct/location to support both offenses | Appellant argued convictions impermissibly duplicated punishment for same conduct | Court found plain error: trafficking and possession were allied offenses of similar import arising from same conduct; vacated one sentence and remanded for the state to elect which offense to pursue for sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (lawful knock-and-talk concept)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless home entry generally impermissible absent exigency)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (exigent-circumstances exception described)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (reasonableness balancing for warrantless entry to address safety/assist occupants)
- Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293 (privacy protections extend to hotel rooms)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness test for consent to search)
- State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (merger/shotgun-protection principles under R.C. 2941.25)