State v. McCray
2015 Ohio 3049
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- McCray was charged with possession of cocaine less than five grams after suppression motion denial.
- Suppression motion claimed unlawful stop/ detention, unlawful pat-down, lack of probable cause, and Miranda violations.
- A suppression hearing occurred on August 19, 2014 with two Trotwood officers testifying.
- A canine sniff alerted to drugs after Rasor asked for consent and McCray allegedly refused at first two requests.
- Officer Richardson then found drug paraphernalia and powder cocaine in McCray’s car; McCray waived Miranda and spoke to police.
- McCray pled no contest six days after the suppression ruling; the trial court found her guilty based on the plea and suppression evidence; final judgment incorrectly states guilty rather than no contest and was remanded for correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the suppression ruling proper based on the alleged unlawfulness of stop and search? | McCray argues improper stop/search and Miranda violations. | McCray contends evidence should have been suppressed. | No reversible error; suppression denial affirmed. |
| Is the conviction valid given the plea and reliance on suppression evidence? | State argues plea admitted facts supporting guilt. | McCray contends lack of independent proof needed. | Frivolous weight claim; conviction upheld based on plea admission. |
| Did the trial court err by admitting hearsay at suppression hearing? | State contends admissibility under suppression standards. | McCray argues hearsay should be excluded. | Frivolous; no nonfrivolous issue found. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ginn, 2013-Ohio-1692 (Ohio 2d Dist. 2013) (hearsay admissibility considerations at suppression proceedings; evidentiary rules defer to court decisions under Evid.R. 104)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (admissibility considerations in suppression-related determinations (not all evidence need be admissible at suppression))
- United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1980) (pretrial evidentiary rulings may rely on hearsay in suppression context)
- State v. Johnson, 2005-Ohio-1367 (Ohio 2d Dist. 2005) (drug-sniffing canine justified without reasonable suspicion if stop not extended beyond reason)
- State v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (canine sniff of a lawfully stopped vehicle is not a search)