State v. Hinton, 2013 Ohio 3381

Hinton was convicted after a no-contest plea to Possession of Heroin (1–5 grams), a fourth-degree felony, with Possession of Marijuana charged and later dismissed.
Officer Spiers responded to a house alarm at 725 Homewood, Dayton, after an in-person informant described a drug transaction nearby.
Within seconds, Spiers observed Hinton and a gray minivan matching the description; Hinton walked away as the cruiser approached.
Spiers conducted a pat-down for weapons and felt a baggie (marijuana); while retrieving it, he felt a hard, irregular object in Hinton’s coin pocket, which he believed to be heroin.
Spiers arrested Hinton, advised her of Miranda rights, and later seizure of marijuana and heroin occurred; suppression motion was denied and the case proceeded to conviction on the heroin charge.
On appeal, Hinton argued the stop and seizure were illegal and should have been suppressed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was based on reasonable suspicion	Hinton argues Spiers lacked a proper basis	State contends informant tip plus observations supported suspicion	No reversible error; stop supported by totality of circumstances
Whether the pat-down for weapons was justified	Hinton contends no basis beyond drug activity for a frisk	State asserts potential danger in drug-trafficking context justifies frisk	Yes; reasonable concern Hinton could be armed justified pat-down
Whether the plain-feel seizure of marijuana and heroin was justified	Hinton disputes the officer could identify drugs by feel	State relies on plain-feel doctrine as applied to marijuana and heroin	Yes; seizure justified under plain-feel doctrine given officer’s experience and object characteristics

Henness v. Bagley, 644 F.3d 308 (6th Cir.2011) (in-person tips have greater trustworthiness than anonymous tips over phone)
Palos–Marquez v. United States, 591 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir.2010) (in-person informant credibility and proximity bolster reliability)
Griffin v. United States, 589 F.3d 148 (4th Cir.2009) (observing demeanor/credibility of informant matters for reliability)
Romain v. United States, 393 F.3d 63 (1st Cir.2004) (informant proximity to crime enhances reliability and risk assessment)
Chapman v. United States, 305 F.3d 530 (6th Cir.2002) (context of drug trafficking raises concern of armed risk justifying frisk)
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-feel doctrine: probable, not certain, criminal character from touch)
State v. Woods, 113 Ohio App.3d 240 (2d Dist.1996) (credibility of officer’s identification of control substance by feel)