State v. Floyd
2012 Ohio 990
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Officer Merrill observed Floyd drive a truck into a driveway behind a closed business at night in a high-theft area.
- The business was closed and had been the subject of prior break-ins in the area.
- Merrill parked across the street, called for back-up, and waited before approaching the building.
- Two minutes after Floyd went behind the building, he drove back into view and was stopped for questioning.
- Floyd exhibited noticeable intoxication and subsequently failed field sobriety and chemical tests.
- Floyd moved to suppress the stop; the municipal court denied the motion; Floyd appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Merrill had reasonable suspicion to stop Floyd | Floyd: no reasonable suspicion. | Floyd: Merrill had suspicion? | Yes; totality supports reasonable suspicion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kodman, 9th Dist. No. 06CA0100-M, 2007-Ohio-5605 (2007) (establishes reasonable suspicion standard under Terry)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 566 N.E.2d 1009 (1991) (totality of circumstances standard for stop)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 797 N.E.2d 797 (2003) (reviewing suppression motions; mixed question of law and fact)
- State v. Rhude, 91 Ohio App.3d 623, 626 (1993) (relevance of surrounding circumstances in reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Brown, 116 Ohio App.3d 477, 481 (1996) (no prior thefts required; conduct not inherently suspicious absent context)
- State v. Pollack, 9th Dist. No. 23988, 2008-Ohio-2024 (2008) (reasonable suspicion when behind closed buildings at night)