State v. Karsikas, 2020 Ohio 5058

Background

On Feb. 14, 2019, Trooper Royko (undercover) observed a gray pickup stop at a residence under narcotics surveillance for only a few minutes; he radioed that description to Patrolman DeFina.
DeFina located the truck pulling into a lot adjacent to another known drug house; he activated lights and the driver, later identified as Gary Karsikas, ran to the porch of 1525 West 8th Street.
On the porch Karsikas pushed past/around Tyler Johnson, attempted to open the door, reached behind Johnson, and was quickly tackled and handcuffed by DeFina.
A K-9 alerted to narcotics in Karsikas’s vehicle; a small bindle was recovered from the porch below where Karsikas had been reaching.
Lab testing showed the bindle contained a mixture including cocaine, heroin, acetyl fentanyl, fentanyl, and carfentanil.
Karsikas was indicted on tampering with evidence, multiple drug-possession counts, and obstructing official business; his motion to suppress was denied, a jury convicted him on all counts, and the convictions/sentences were affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Was the investigatory stop supported by reasonable suspicion?	DeFina relied on Royko’s radio that Karsikas visited a known drug house briefly, DeFina’s recognition of the truck, the truck’s movement to another known drug house, and DeFina’s prior dealings with Karsikas -> reasonable suspicion.	Arrest was based on inadmissible hearsay (Royko’s observations); no sufficient facts to justify stop absent Royko’s testimony.	Stop was lawful: totality of circumstances (radio tip + DeFina’s observations + area reputation + officer experience) provided reasonable, articulable suspicion.
2) Was DeFina’s testimony about Royko’s observations inadmissible hearsay at the suppression hearing?	State: officers may rely on fellow-officer communications; hearsay may be considered at suppression hearings; Weisner/Hensley allow reliance on dispatch/another officer.	Counsel objected that testimony was "textbook hearsay" and without Royko there was no proof of visit to the drug house.	No error: testimony admissible for suppression purposes; officers may act on other officers’ reports and courts may consider hearsay at suppression hearings.
3) Was the evidence sufficient/against manifest weight to support convictions for possession and tampering?	State: circumstantial evidence — brief stop at a known drug house, flight upon police approach, K-9 alert to vehicle, bindle found where Karsikas reached — supports possession and tampering.	Defense: no direct proof linking the porch bindle to Karsikas; another person (Johnson) was on porch with drug history; State asked for multiple inferences.	Evidence was sufficient and not against manifest weight: circumstantial evidence and conduct (flight, reaching) supported finding of knowing possession and tampering.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (mixed question of law and fact on suppression review)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry stop reasonable-suspicion framework)
Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (officer may rely on dispatch/another officer’s information)
United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (police reliance on flyers/other officers justified)
United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (courts may consider hearsay at suppression hearings)
State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (suppression hearings not bound by Rules of Evidence)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sufficiency standard—evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence)