State v. Keating
2020 Ohio 2770
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Miami Township officers were dispatched for a welfare check on a female passenger reported to have open sores and bloody gloves; they found Allison Keating inside a McDonald's.
- Keating said the sores were impetigo, refused medical aid, and verbally gave her Social Security number when asked for ID.
- Officer Taylor (and Sgt. Hirsch nearby) ran the number via dispatch; Taylor told Keating she "could get back in the van. He'd be just a minute" (trial court credited Keating's testimony).
- While Keating sat in the passenger seat, dispatch advised of an outstanding warrant; Taylor asked about contraband, Keating disclosed a syringe, was handcuffed, and consented to retrieval of items from her backpack, where heroin was found.
- Keating moved to suppress; the trial court granted the motion, finding the officer's words and the presence of two officers converted a consensual encounter into an investigatory detention without reasonable suspicion. The State appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Keating) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer's words/actions converted a consensual encounter into a Fourth Amendment seizure requiring reasonable suspicion | Encounter remained consensual until officer announced the warrant; running the SSN was routine and did not detain Keating | Officer's statement that she "could get back in the van. He'd be just a minute," plus two officers surrounding the van, would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave | Court: encounter was consensual at first but became an investigatory detention at the quoted statement; no reasonable suspicion existed → seizure unconstitutional; suppression affirmed |
| Whether the heroin should be admissible because its discovery followed the independent/intervening discovery of the warrant | Heroin resulted from discovery of the warrant (intervening/independent source) and thus should not be suppressed | Suppression warranted because detention preceding knowledge of the warrant was unlawful, tainting the fruit | Court: declined to decide this remedial/attenuation argument — State did not raise it below, so the court would not address it on appeal |
| Whether the detention was justified by the community-caretaking / emergency-aid function (welfare check) | (Not argued below) | Detention was part of a welfare check; brief identity confirmation was reasonable under community-caretaking | Court: refused to adopt that theory because the State did not assert it below and the record did not support the State's burden on this theory; majority would not consider it; dissent would have remanded for briefing |
| Whether the State may raise new legal theories on appeal (waiver/forfeiture) | State attempted new theories on appeal (independent source/community-caretaking) | Keating: issues not raised below are waived | Court: new theories not raised in the trial court are waived and not considered on appeal; arguments forfeited/waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (seizure inquiry asks whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline officer's requests)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (factors indicating a seizure include threatening presence of several officers, blocking, display of weapon, physical touching, or language indicating compulsion)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (community-caretaking activity may be divorced from criminal investigation)
- State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St.3d 496 (1996) (appellate courts may address issues not raised below only if evidentiary basis exists and parties are given opportunity to brief)
- State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325 (2012) (community-caretaking / emergency-aid exception permits warrantless stop when officer reasonably believes immediate assistance is needed)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment; discussion of voluntariness and waiver principles)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture; appellate relief may be exercised in limited circumstances)