State v. Johnson
2017 Ohio 5527
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 4, 2015, deputies stopped Nicholas Johnson’s Lexus after HIDTA task‑force officers, who had been surveilling suspected drug activity, reported the vehicle lacked a front license plate and may be involved in narcotics activity.
- Deputy Carter initiated the traffic stop based on the transmitted information; he asked Johnson to exit the vehicle and sought consent to pat‑down him for weapons.
- Johnson consented to the pat‑down; during the frisk Carter felt a bulge, Johnson fled, was caught, handcuffed, and searched incident to arrest; officers found a large bag of heroin.
- Detective Smith interviewed Johnson after advising him of Miranda rights; Johnson admitted the heroin was for personal use. Johnson pleaded no contest and was sentenced to three years imprisonment and a $20,000 fine (partially mandatory).
- Johnson moved to suppress the physical evidence and statements, arguing the stop, search, and post‑stop interrogation were unconstitutional; he also challenged the fine as excessive and the court’s consideration of his ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of traffic stop (reasonable suspicion) | State: Collective knowledge of HIDTA officers (Whitacre’s observation relayed) gave Carter reasonable suspicion to stop for equipment violation. | Johnson: Carter lacked personal, contemporaneous observation of plate violation; stop was unjustified. | Stop lawful under collective‑knowledge doctrine; plate violation observed by Whitacre and relayed justified the stop. |
| Voluntariness of consent to pat‑down | State: Consent given voluntarily ~30–45 seconds after exit; no coercion. | Johnson: Consent was not voluntary because of custodial pressure during stop. | Consent was voluntary by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Legality of search after flight (search incident to arrest) | State: Flight from a lawful Terry stop constituted obstructing official business (an arrestable offense), so search incident to arrest was lawful. | Johnson: No arrestable offense had occurred; search was unlawful. | Appellant’s flight justified arrest for obstruction; search incident to arrest was reasonable. |
| Admissibility of statements (Miranda) | State: Smith read Miranda; Johnson waived verbally; statements admissible. | Johnson: Statements occurred before Miranda warnings. | Court credited Smith’s report; Miranda warnings were given and statements admissible. |
| Amount of fine & ability to pay | State: Statutory maximum for first‑degree trafficking is $20,000; mandatory minimum half applies; court considered ability to pay. | Johnson: Court misstated mandatory amount and failed to properly consider indigence. | Court’s imposition of a $20,000 fine (with mandatory half rule) was lawful; Johnson failed to file affidavit of indigence and court considered ability to pay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (permits stops and limited frisks on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings)
- United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (officer may rely on dispatch/flyer; validity depends on issuer’s reasonable suspicion)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (collective knowledge doctrine; officer may rely on information from colleagues)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (valid traffic stop for observed violation remains valid despite officer’s ulterior motive)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to a lawful arrest is reasonable)