State v. Kerr, 2017 Ohio 8516

Officer Slusher observed, from ~300 feet away at ~8:40 p.m., a pedestrian approach a car driven by Toby Kerr, reach into the open driver-side window for a few seconds, then turn and walk away; Slusher could not see any item exchanged.
Slusher, familiar with the area and aware of drug activity there, radioed Officer Montgomery, who stopped Kerr’s vehicle shortly thereafter. No traffic violation or other criminal act was observed prior to the stop.
Montgomery approached the car, observed furtive movements, ordered Kerr out, handcuffed him, and officers searched Kerr and the vehicle; a canine was present but not deployed at that point.
During the warrantless vehicle search following the stop, officers located a small wet baggie with white residue in the rear seat and cocaine in a cigarette pack in the driver-side door compartment.
Kerr was indicted for possession of cocaine, moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful stop and search; the trial court denied the motion, Kerr later entered a no-contest plea and was convicted; he appealed, challenging the legality of the stop and the subsequent search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Kerr’s vehicle	Slusher’s observation of a brief hand-to-window contact in a high-drug area, combined with officer training and evening hour, justified an investigatory stop.	The observed conduct was lawful in appearance; officer was 300 feet away, saw no exchange, had limited experience, and location/time alone cannot supply suspicion.	Stop lacked reasonable suspicion; traffic stop unlawful.
Whether evidence from vehicle search must be suppressed	Search was lawful as incident to a valid investigatory stop or fell within search exceptions.	Evidence was tainted by an unlawful stop; fruits of the search must be suppressed.	Moot after reversal of stop; suppression required as remedy for Fourth Amendment violation.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (recognizes investigatory stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion)
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (being in a high-crime area alone does not justify seizure)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule for unlawfully obtained evidence)
State v. Carter, 69 Ohio St.3d 57 (Ohio 1994) (warning against stopping persons solely because they are in high-crime areas)
State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio) (traffic stop must be supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion)