2016 Ohio 4810
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Green was stopped for a loud/defective exhaust; officer issued a written warning during the stop.
- OfficerPasvanis recognized Green and her passenger from an earlier incident involving marijuana.
- Pasvanis called for a K-9 unit; the canine team arrived ~10 minutes after the warning was issued.
- The dog alerted on the vehicle and then on Green’s purse; officers found marijuana and a pipe.
- Green admitted ownership of the items; she was charged with possession and paraphernalia (both minor misdemeanors) and filed a motion to suppress evidence and statements.
- Trial court denied the motion to suppress; Green pled no contest and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unreasonably extended to conduct a dog sniff | The State contended the dog sniff was permissible during the stop and did not unlawfully prolong it | Green argued the stop was completed when the warning was issued and the subsequent dog sniff unlawfully extended the detention without reasonable suspicion | Court held the dog sniff extended the stop beyond its mission without reasonable suspicion and suppression was required |
| Whether prior knowledge of a suspect’s past drug involvement can supply reasonable suspicion to extend a stop | State relied on officers’ recognition of occupants from a prior incident as supporting the K-9 deployment | Green argued prior involvement (or arrest) alone cannot justify continuing the stop absent new specific facts | Court held prior knowledge alone is insufficient to create reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop |
| Whether statements by Green after the dog alert should be suppressed under Miranda | State argued statements were voluntary and admissible | Green argued statements were fruits of the unlawful prolongation and were obtained without proper warnings | Court found the suppression ruling on the sniff dispositive and treated the Miranda claim as moot |
| Remedy when a prolonged stop yields evidence | State argued evidence should be admissible because sniff produced probable cause | Green argued evidence must be suppressed as product of unlawful detention | Court reversed convictions and remanded for suppression/disposition by the State |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (K-9 sniff during a lawful traffic stop does not by itself violate the Fourth Amendment if it does not prolong the stop)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (officers may not prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff absent reasonable, articulable suspicion; the critical question is whether the sniff added time to the stop)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (appellate review of suppression motions: trial court findings of fact are given deference; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)