State v. Freeders
2017 Ohio 9278
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 12, 2016 Alliance police, monitoring NPLEX, received an alert that Freeders purchased pseudoephedrine at a Walmart; officers knew Freeders from prior precursor purchases and a reported CI buy six days earlier.
- Officers observed Freeders leave an AutoZone holding a small bag consistent with lithium batteries, then followed and stopped his car; batteries were seen in plain view and Freeders was arrested for possessing meth precursors.
- Freeders refused consent to search 450 McNally Court and denied living there; officers checked the residence’s trash, saw empty precursor containers, and entered under R.C. 2933.33(A) (exigent danger from meth labs), later obtaining a warrant.
- Freeders was indicted on illegal manufacture (first-degree felony) and illegal assembly/possession of chemicals for manufacture (third-degree felony); he moved to suppress the traffic stop and warrantless entry.
- Trial court held an evidentiary hearing, denied the suppression motion, Freeders pled no contest, was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, and appealed solely arguing Fourth Amendment violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of traffic stop | Stop supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion from NPLEX purchases, recent CI buy, and observed AutoZone activity | Stop was unconstitutional detention without adequate suspicion | Affirmed: officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Freeders |
| Warrantless entry of 450 McNally Ct. | Entry justified by exigent circumstances under R.C. 2933.33(A) due to danger of active meth lab and probable cause from precursor evidence | Entry violated Fourth Amendment; warrant required | Affirmed: probable cause + exigent circumstances justified warrantless entry |
| Sufficiency of suppression motion specificity | State not required to anticipate all suppression theories; court reviewed the merits despite sparse defendant motion | Argued suppression grounds were raised and should be considered | Court considered merits and rejected suppression claim |
| Standing to challenge search (ancillary) | State suggested possible lack of standing since Freeders denied residence; court found unnecessary to decide | Freeders could challenge search regardless | Not reached: court did not decide standing because search validity resolved on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officers may briefly stop/detain with reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (reasonable-suspicion and probable-cause determinations reviewed de novo)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (2008) (traffic stop valid if prompted by reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982) (appellate review standards for suppression rulings)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991) (Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures)