State v. Gartrell
2014 Ohio 5203
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On March 26, 2013 police stopped a Columbus-based taxi in Marion, Ohio after officers (via pacing and radio) believed it was speeding; appellant Curtis Gartrell was a rear-passenger.
- Detective Isom smelled raw marijuana from the vehicle, Gartrell produced a small bag of marijuana, consented to a search, and officers found $1,700+ on him; the taxi driver opened the trunk and a suitcase was visible.
- Gartrell consented to a search of the suitcase, fled on foot while officers searched it, was tasered/ subdued and arrested; officers recovered 499 small glassine bindles in the suitcase.
- BCI analyst Rentz tested 28 randomly sampled bindles using GC-MS and hypergeometric sampling and concluded the 499 bindles contained heroin (9.3 grams total); officers testified Gartrell admitted about 500 bindles of heroin.
- Gartrell moved to suppress (denied), was convicted by a jury of trafficking and possession of heroin (100–499 unit doses), sentenced, and appealed raising suppression, sufficiency/manifest-weight, and speedy-trial claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Gartrell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the traffic stop | Stop justified because Det. Isom paced the cab at ~45 mph in a 35 zone; Utley lawfully stopped based on that radio info | Stop unconstitutional: no reasonable suspicion/probable cause to follow or stop the cab; alleged pretext/racial profiling | Court: Stop lawful. Isom’s pacing and experience provided reasonable articulable suspicion; Utley could rely on the radio dispatch |
| Scope of searches and consent | Odor of raw marijuana + Gartrell’s production of marijuana + large cash + driver identifying luggage gave probable cause and/or valid consent to search suitcase/trunk | Search exceeded passenger-stop scope; consent was not knowing/voluntary | Court: Search lawful. Probable cause existed (odor + possession + cash + inconsistent statements); Gartrell voluntarily consented to baggage search |
| Miranda/custodial interrogation timing | Pre-arrest roadside questioning not custodial; Miranda warnings given after capture; post-arrest statements voluntary | Gartrell was effectively in custody from the moment of the stop and statements (post-capture) were coerced (taser/assault) and should be suppressed | Court: No Miranda violation. Traffic stop questioning noncustodial; arrest occurred after foot pursuit; post-arrest statements were voluntary and admissible |
| Sufficiency/manifest weight of drug-quantity evidence | Expert used accepted hypergeometric/random sampling (28 of 499) with GC-MS confirmation; officers heard admissions of ~500 bindles—sufficient for 100–499 unit-dose offense | Sampling insufficient — only 28 tested; analyst couldn’t fully explain the math/reliability, so State proved at most 28 bindles | Court: Convictions upheld. Hypergeometric sampling accepted; Rentz’s testimony + admissions provided sufficient evidence; weight of evidence did not create miscarriage of justice |
| Speedy-trial computation | Continuances (defendant motions, suppression motion, counsel withdrawal, continuances to allow new counsel) tolled time; total excluded days exceeded threshold | Court miscounted tolling; some periods (e.g., between suppression ruling and appointment of counsel) should not have been excluded; discovery-sanction delay improperly charged to defendant | Court: No violation. Tolls for defendant motions and reasonable continuances (including time to appoint/allow new counsel to prepare) were proper; speedy-trial period satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings; accept trial court's factual findings, de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial suspects must receive warnings before interrogation)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (routine traffic stops are not custodial for Miranda purposes)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment)
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1989) (standard for sufficiency review: whether, viewing evidence in favor of prosecution, any rational trier could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for manifest-weight review and limited reversal circumstances)
- Weisner v. City of Maumee, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (1999) (reliability/ use of information transmitted by one officer to another for stops)