State v. Lumbus
2016 Ohio 380
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Brian Lumbus was charged in a multi-defendant indictment arising from an investigation into employees trafficking bank customers’ personal/financial information and subsequent fraudulent withdrawals and counterfeit checks. He was convicted on multiple counts after a second jury trial and sentenced to a lengthy prison term and restitution.
- On November 14, 2010, Westlake PD stopped Lumbus’s vehicle for speeding after an officer paced it at ~72 mph in a 60 mph zone; no speeding citation was issued at the time. Officers discovered discrepancies in Lumbus’s driver’s license during the stop, arrested him for fraud, impounded the vehicle, and performed an inventory search that yielded identification blanks, electronic media, and other items.
- Officers surveilled vehicles delivering suspected stolen merchandise to Lumbus’s grandmother’s house (Roy Avenue). After detaining persons outside the house, Secret Service and sheriff’s deputies entered the home without a warrant, conducted a protective sweep, and obtained Walton’s (grandmother’s) consent to search the garage under contested circumstances.
- Police executed search warrants at two other residences (Friend Avenue and Pratt Avenue) and seized additional evidence; defense challenged probable cause and signature/formalities of those warrants.
- A Bay Village patrol officer (Officer Kime) performed computer-forensic examinations of seized media; defense challenged his qualifications to give expert testimony on those devices.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lumbus's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop | Stop valid: officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion of speeding (observation + pacing) | Stop was pretextual / based on GPS tracking or other investigation | Stop lawful; pacing over ~1 mile + observations supplied reasonable suspicion |
| Inventory search of impounded car | Inventory exception justified impound and search; conducted per department policy in good faith | Inventory was pretext for investigatory search | Inventory lawful; executed in good faith and not a pretext |
| Search of grandmother’s garage | Consent was obtained from Walton (state relies on recorded verbal consent) and items seized admissible; Lumbus lacks privacy interest | Consent was coerced/obtained under duress; search unlawful; Lumbus has standing to challenge | Entry/search of house/garage unlawful (consent not voluntary) but Lumbus lacks standing to suppress because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in garage |
| Validity of Friend/Pratt search warrants | Affidavits supported probable cause; warrants properly presented to and signed by judges; filing with clerk post-execution does not invalidate | Warrants lacked probable cause; signatures and filing procedure defective under R.C. 2933.23 and Crim.R.41 | Warrants valid; no evidence of lack of probable cause; signatures authenticated by judges; post-execution filing not fatal |
| Qualification of Officer Kime as computer-forensics expert | Kime possesses sufficient training, experience, and reliable methods to assist jury | Kime’s training outdated and insufficient for expert testimony | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Kime qualified as an expert and testimony admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (constitutional standard for vehicle stops)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (stop-and-frisk reasonable suspicion standard)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory-search exception to warrant requirement)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent voluntariness—totality of circumstances)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing/expectation of privacy analysis)
- Payner v. United States, 447 U.S. 727 (limits on suppressing third-party-seized evidence under supervisory power)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (appellate review standard for suppression rulings)
- State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St.3d 105 (Ohio on inventories/impounds)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (stop valid even with ulterior motive if probable cause exists)