State v. Herron, 2014 Ohio 3166

Indictment: Herron charged with carrying a concealed weapon, improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle; one related count dismissed.
Police stopped Robbins’ vehicle for an unsafe windshield crack; Herron was a passenger and questioned during the stop.
Officer obtained Robbins’ consent to search the vehicle after questioning, with Herron present.
During the search, a semi-automatic handgun was found under the front passenger seat; both occupants were arrested.
Herron moved to suppress, contesting stop, detention, and search as Fourth Amendment violations; trial court denied.
On appeal, court affirms, holding the stop supported by reasonable suspicion given the windshield crack, and consent to search valid within lawful stop.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop supported by reasonable articulable suspicion?	Herron argued no reasonable suspicion existed.	Herron contends the crack did not render the vehicle unsafe.	Yes; the crack was substantial enough to create reasonable suspicion.
Was the subsequent search consensual and was Herron lawfully detained?	State maintained search was consensual during lawful stop.	Herron argued detention exceeded lawful scope and consent was tainted.	Yes; search was consensual within a lawful stop; detention was permissible for processing the stop.

State v. Latham, 2004-Ohio-2314 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20302) (windshield crack alone not suspicion unless substantial/unsafe)
State v. Repp, 2001-Ohio-7034 (Fifth Dist.) (large crack across windshield can create reasonable suspicion)
State v. Watts, 2007-Ohio-2411 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21982) (consent to search during lawful stop valid when within stop period)
State v. Robinette, 1997-Ohio-343 (Ohio Supreme Court) (continuation of detention and voluntariness of consent assessed cumulatively)
State v. Retherford, 1994-Ohio-3d 586 (Ohio App.) (detention impact on validity of consent to search)