State v. Hancock, 2012 Ohio 1436

Hancock appeals after a no-contest plea to crack-cocaine possession, a third-degree felony.
The trial court denied Hancock’s suppression motion challenging warrantless entry.
Police conducted a knock-and-advise at 3 Firwood Dr; Hancock exited, then retrieved a baggy he allegedly pulled from his pocket.
Officers followed Hancock into the residence and found the baggy with white substance and later obtained incriminating statements after Miranda Advisement.
Hancock was indicted for possession and tampering; tampering was dismissed after his plea; sentence imposed was three years.
Appellate review addresses Fourth Amendment suppression, including seizure timing and whether exigent circumstances justified entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Hancock seized before cocaine was observed?	Hancock was seized by officers’ show of force.	No seizure occurred outside the home; he fled.	No seizure occurred outside the home.
Did exigent circumstances justify the warrantless entry into the home?	Police created the exigency by their presence.	Exigency existed and was not created by police; King controls.	Exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.

State v. Hart, 2007-Ohio-7162 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22018) (show of force precedes seizure; no seizure until compliance)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (police generally create exigency; entry to prevent evidence destruction allowed when no Fourth Amendment violation)
State v. Leveck, 2011-Ohio-1135 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23970) (standard for reviewing suppression involves independent legal conclusion)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003-Ohio-5372) (Fourth Amendment review and suppression issues grounded in Ohio law)