State v. Harper
2014 Ohio 347
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Oct. 19, 2011 Trooper Ausse stopped Isha S. Harper on I-71 for allegedly following a tractor-trailer too closely; he later learned Harper had an outstanding Ashland County warrant and arrested her.
- The car (owned by Harper’s cousin) was to be towed; officers conducted an inventory of the vehicle and discovered two kilograms of cocaine in the trunk.
- Harper was indicted for drug possession with a Major Drug Offender specification; she moved to suppress the evidence claiming the stop and search were unlawful.
- At the suppression hearing, Trooper Ausse testified about observing unsafe following/lane-change conduct and following Highway Patrol inventory policy; dash-cam video and other testimony contradicted parts of his account.
- The trial court denied suppression; a jury convicted Harper and she was sentenced to 13 years. Harper appealed.
- The Ninth District reversed, holding the stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion and the inventory was a pretextual, improper search under the Fourth Amendment and Ohio law, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop (reasonable suspicion for following too closely) | Trooper had specific, articulable facts to stop Harper for following too closely and unsafe lane change | Harper argued trooper’s testimony was inconsistent with dash-cam and lacked key facts (speed) so no reasonable suspicion | Stop invalid: court found dash-cam contradicted trooper, missing speed evidence, so no reasonable suspicion to stop |
| Validity of inventory search/impoundment | State: vehicle lawfully impounded after arrest; inventory search followed written policy and was permissible exception to warrant requirement | Harper: inventory was not complete, policy not followed, and acted as pretext for investigatory search | Inventory invalid: officers failed to comply with policy (omitted items), stopped inventory after finding contraband, and evidence showed pretextual search |
| Admission of trial errors (judicial questioning, prosecutorial remarks, evidence on street value and bail) | State: trial conduct and evidence were proper and harmless if any error | Harper: multiple trial errors deprived her of fair trial and due process | Moot: court reversed on suppression grounds and rendered these issues moot on appeal |
| Remedy | State sought to uphold conviction; preserve trial verdict | Harper sought suppression and reversal/remand | Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (Ohio 1999) (officer must have specific, articulable facts to justify investigative stop)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable except for established exceptions)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (Fourth Amendment protects people, not places)
- State v. Robinson, 58 Ohio St.2d 478 (Ohio 1979) (inventory search of lawfully impounded vehicle is reasonable when performed pursuant to standard police practice)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventories pursuant to standard police procedures are reasonable)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (appellate review of suppression is mixed question: accept trial court’s factual findings if supported, review legal conclusion de novo)
- State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291 (Ohio 1980) (totality of circumstances governs reasonable suspicion analysis)
- State v. Hobbs, 133 Ohio St.3d 43 (Ohio 2012) (application of Burnside to suppression review)