2018 Ohio 2080
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Trooper Robert Marshall stopped Mattie Rose Gordon for speeding (35 mph in a 25 mph zone) at about 11:54 p.m.; Marshall observed signs suggesting impairment (nervousness, constricted pupils, red/glassy eyes, delayed reactions).
- Marshall asked Gordon to exit the vehicle, patted her down for officer safety (per department policy), and felt an object in her vest pocket; Gordon moved as if to reach for it and consented to him retrieving it — it was an orange prescription pill bottle bearing her name and containing multiple pills.
- Marshall Mirandized Gordon, asked about drug use (she admitted taking various medications, with equivocal statements about Xanax), and requested SFSTs; a K-9 alerted on the vehicle but found no contraband.
- Marshall administered standardized field sobriety tests; Gordon displayed multiple clues of impairment on HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg-stand tests and was arrested for OVI. She provided a supervised urine sample that later tested positive for amphetamines above the legal limit.
- Gordon moved to suppress evidence, arguing the pat-down and resulting discovery of the pill bottle were unlawful and that, absent that discovery, the stop would have remained a routine speeding stop. The trial court suppressed her statements about the pill bottle but admitted the pill bottle itself under the inevitable-discovery doctrine; Gordon appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed the dash-cam video and testimony, agreed the pat-down was unlawful (no reasonable belief she was armed and dangerous), but concluded the trooper would have conducted SFSTs and effectuated an arrest regardless, so the pill bottle would have been inevitably discovered and was admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop could be expanded to SFSTs and a pat-down/Search before arrest | Trooper: signs of impairment justified removal from vehicle, SFSTs, and officer-safety pat-down | Gordon: stop should have remained a simple speeding stop; pat-down and pill-bottle discovery unlawfully expanded the stop | Court: Trooper had independent, articulable reasons to investigate impairment and would have conducted SFSTs regardless; expansion to impairment investigation lawful |
| Whether the pat-down that produced the pill bottle was lawful | State: pat-down was officer-safety policy and led to discovery but arrest was inevitability | Gordon: pat-down lacked specific facts to justify belief she was armed/dangerous, so resulting search was unlawful | Court: Pat-down unlawful because officer testified it was based on policy, not specific suspicion of a weapon |
| Admissibility of the pill bottle found during unlawful pat-down | State: evidence admissible under the inevitable-discovery doctrine because arrest and search incident to arrest were inevitable given SFST results | Gordon: pill bottle inadmissible because it was discovered via unlawful search and was the precipitating cause for further investigation | Held: Pill bottle admissible — the inevitable-discovery doctrine applies because there was a very high probability the pill bottle would have been found during a lawful search incident to arrest |
| Whether the trial court correctly applied suppression standards on appeal | State: trial court’s factual findings supported by video and testimony; legal standard correctly applied | Gordon: challenges trial court’s factual finding that SFSTs would have occurred absent pill bottle discovery and challenges legal application of inevitable-discovery | Held: Appellate court accepts trial-court factual findings (video corroborative) and independently finds application of inevitable-discovery proper; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lozada, 92 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 2001) (placement in patrol car cannot justify a weapons search if done merely for officer convenience)
- State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio 1996) (trial court is factfinder at suppression hearings; appellate courts defer to factual findings supported by credible evidence)
- State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio 1985) (discusses inevitable-discovery doctrine under Ohio law)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (federal formulation of the inevitable-discovery exception to the exclusionary rule)
- State v. Ford, 64 Ohio App.3d 105 (Ohio Ct. App.) (inevitable-discovery requires a very high degree of probability evidence would have been obtained independently)