State v. Grefer
2014 Ohio 51
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On March 10, 2012, Dayton officers surveilling a high‑drug‑activity area observed two men in a parked car prepare ("cook") what appeared to be heroin; one man fled when officers approached.
- Mary Grefer was seen exit the car, enter a Wendy’s restroom, and when an officer approached she turned and attempted to reenter the restroom.
- The officer detained Grefer after she repeatedly reached toward her right front pants pocket despite being told not to; the officer handcuffed her after a third reach.
- During a pat‑down for officer safety, the officer felt an object in her pocket; Grefer told the officer there was heroin in the pocket and consented to its removal.
- Grefer was indicted for possession of heroin and cocaine, moved to suppress the seized drugs, pled no contest to heroin (cocaine count dismissed), and was sentenced to nine months.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the stop, frisk, and consented seizure were lawful and that a Miranda claim was waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grefer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of the initial stop/detention | Officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion based on recent drug arrest in area, observed drug activity in the car, flight by one occupant, and Grefer’s proximity | Stop was unlawful; no reasonable suspicion to detain Grefer | Stop was lawful—totality (drug activity, association with occupants, flight, evasive conduct) gave reasonable suspicion |
| Authority to frisk for weapons | Frisk justified because persons engaged in drug activity often are armed and Grefer repeatedly reached for pocket after warnings | Frisk exceeded Terry scope; no reasonable belief Grefer was armed | Frisk justified—officer reasonably feared for safety given context and repeated reaching into pocket |
| Seizure of contraband from pocket | Officer obtained verbal consent from Grefer to remove the item after she admitted it was heroin | Removal exceeded frisk scope and was not consensual | Seizure admissible—consent to remove item was voluntary under totality of circumstances |
| Miranda and post‑seizure statements | Statements elicited after Miranda warnings and/or waived | Grefer argues statements identifying heroin should be suppressed as custodial interrogation without Miranda | Miranda claim waived on appeal (not raised at suppression hearing); court did not address merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to states)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (officer may stop and frisk on reasonable, articulable suspicion and belief suspect is armed)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (consent invalid if obtained by claim of lawful authority)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (reasonable belief standard for frisk)
- State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (recognition that persons engaged in drug activity may be armed)