2020 Ohio 4683
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Officers investigating reported gunshots approached a parked car; Officer Sarchet knocked on the passenger window and asked occupants if they had heard shots.
- Sarchet smelled marijuana and saw residue and an open container, but did not at that time announce a change in the encounter; he asked the driver to step out and speak with him while a deputy remained at the passenger door.
- The driver was ordered to face the car, patted down, handcuffed, and seated on the curb. During this interval a deputy told Sarchet there was a gun in the backseat.
- While being removed and patted down, Lyle produced his CHL; officers found an empty holster on him and recovered a handgun (and a small bag of fentanyl) partially hidden under a booster seat.
- Lyle was charged and convicted under R.C. 2923.12(B)(1) for failing to promptly inform officers of his CHL and the handgun; the trial court revoked his CHL and ordered forfeiture of the firearm.
- The First District reversed, holding the encounter was consensual until Lyle disclosed the firearm and CHL, reversed the conviction, discharged Lyle, and remanded to vacate forfeiture and suspension orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When was the defendant "stopped for a law enforcement purpose" under R.C. 2923.12(B)(1)? | The state: the encounter became a stop once officers were investigating (and once marijuana was seen/smelled) and when a deputy stood by the passenger door. | Lyle: the initial contact was a consensual encounter; no seizure/stop occurred until officers physically restrained or manifested authority (i.e., removal/handcuffing). | Court: encounter was consensual when Sarchet first knocked/questioned; not a "stop" for §2923.12(B)(1) until officers prepared to remove Lyle; evidence insufficient that Lyle was stopped earlier. |
| Did Lyle fail to "promptly inform" officers that he had a CHL and a concealed handgun after being stopped? | The state: Lyle did not promptly disclose; waiting several minutes (and disclosure only during a pat-down) was not prompt. | Lyle: he informed the deputy before removal and disclosed his CHL while being patted down; he did not have a duty to disclose before a stop. | Court: in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the state failed to prove Lyle did not promptly inform after being stopped; conviction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- 109 Ohio St.3d 255 (Tenace) (motion for acquittal and sufficiency-of-evidence standard applies to Crim.R. 29)
- 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (Martin) (articulating sufficiency standard)
- 460 U.S. 491 (Royer) (distinguishing consensual encounters, Terry stops, and arrests)
- 501 U.S. 429 (Bostick) (objective test for whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline/terminate encounter)
- 499 U.S. 621 (California v. Hodari D.) (seizure occurs by physical force or show of authority)
- 466 U.S. 210 (I.N.S. v. Delgado) (police questioning alone generally does not constitute a seizure)
- 128 Ohio App.3d 640 (Boys) (approach/questioning of occupant in parked car is a consensual encounter absent seizure)
- 127 Ohio App.3d 265 (Hill) (no seizure where no physical contact and defendant did not submit to authority)
- 95 N.E.3d 809 (City of Strongsville v. Johnson) (Eighth Dist.) (approach to a stalled vehicle to offer assistance did not constitute a §2923.12 stop)