State v. Gardner
2011 Ohio 5692
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Gardner was convicted of possession of cocaine after a suppression ruling and appealed.
- Detective House followed a pickup believed to be tied to drug activity in a high-crime Dayton area.
- The truck was traced to an out-of-county owner with a prior drug conviction in Clinton County.
- Gardner and another man parked at a residence; later Easter left the residence, with Gardner inside the car.
- Detective House detained Easter, then observed Gardner rising and appearing to reach into the car’s back area; Gardner complied with orders.
- Gardner was handcuffed and pat-down searched; cocaine was seized from his shorts; Gardner made an incriminating statement before Miranda warnings; Gardner later faced a warrant for arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop and pat-down were supported by reasonable suspicion | State contends the stop and pat-down were justified by circumstances | Gardner argues lack of reasonable suspicion | No, waives on suppression issues; see discussion of warrant taint (ambiguous on record) |
| Whether discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant dissipates the taint of an unlawful stop | State argues warrant discovery cures illegality and permits arrest/search | Gardner contends taint remains; warrant discovery not attenuating | Discovery of the warrant was direct, proximate, non-attenuated; taint not dissipated; suppression required |
| Whether the suppression court erred by not making explicit factual findings on Terry/pat-down and plain-view issues | State asserts proper review when findings are supported by evidence | Gardner argues absence of necessary factual findings | Remanded for factual findings and proper resolution consistent with the opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (unreasonable searches may not automatically trigger exclusionary rule when mistaken recall)
- United States v. Gross, 624 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2010) (discovery of a warrant during an unlawful stop may not dissipate taint where stop had no legal purpose)
- United States v. Lopez, 443 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2006) (continued detention after warrant check may be unlawful; taint not dissipated)
- State v. Smith, 2008-Ohio-5523 (Ohio App. 2008) (holding that discovery of warrant after all unlawfully detained may not cure taint)
- State v. Williams, 2008-Ohio-6030 (Ohio App. 2008) (outstanding warrant can affect privacy expectations and admissibility)
- State v. Harding, 2009-Ohio-59 (Ohio App. 2009) (outstanding warrant and privacy expectations; reflect modern approach)