State v. Hines, 2012 Ohio 207

Hines was convicted by no contest plea of Carrying a Concealed Weapon in the Dayton, Ohio area and sentenced to community control.
Two Dayton officers stopped Hines in late December 2009, asked his name, and inquired about weapons; Hines indicated a weapon was in his backpack.
The backpack was opened and a handgun was seized; the officers did not testify that they knew of an outstanding warrant during the encounter.
The trial court denied the suppression motion, treating the stop/search as valid due to an outstanding warrant under the City of Dayton v. Click line of cases.
Hines appealed, arguing the suppression ruling was incorrect after State v. Gardner overruled the Click framework and required attenuation analysis.
The appellate court reversed and remanded to reconsider the suppression motion consistent with Gardner, noting the court did not address voluntariness of the stop or weapon-suspicion grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the suppression denial complied with Gardner attenuation doctrine	Hines	Hines	Reversed and remanded
Whether the stop was consensual or an unlawful stop based on lack of independent justification	Hines contends the stop was not justified and not consensual	State relied on warrant-based rationale	Remanded for suppression reconsideration
Whether the warrant outstanding at the time of the search tainted the search and seizure	Gardner requires attenuation; warrant alone cannot validate	Trial court treated warrant as sufficient justification	Remanded for reconsideration under Gardner

State v. Gardner, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 24308, 2011-Ohio-5692 (2011) (overruled Click; requires attenuation analysis for unlawful searches)
State v. Smith, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 22434, 2008-Ohio-5523 (2008) (clarified limits of warrant-based stop/search justification)
State v. Harding, 180 Ohio App.3d 497, 2009-Ohio-59 (2009) (further discussion of search/stop framework)