State v. McCullough
2014 Ohio 1696
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Detective McGarvey received CI information that Babineau would drive to Dayton to buy heroin; CI had reliable history. McGarvey surveilled Babineau as he gathered money and observed a $50 exchange with the CI.
- After the exchange, Babineau rode in a blue Monte Carlo driven by Anndrea McCullough; McGarvey followed them toward Dayton, lost them briefly, then reidentified them returning toward Fayette County.
- Deputies on State Route 35 clocked the Monte Carlo at 67 mph (2 mph over the limit) and initiated a traffic stop. Occupants were removed; a narcotics canine alerted on the Monte Carlo and on the two patrol cruisers holding the occupants. Vehicle searches produced no narcotics.
- McCullough and Babineau were transported to the sheriff’s office; while McGarvey was drafting search warrants, McCullough was ordered to change into jail clothes and produced two baggies of heroin she had concealed on her person.
- Trial court denied McCullough’s motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention lawful and that the inevitable-discovery doctrine applied to admit the drugs; McCullough pled no contest and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McCullough) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop lawful? | Stop lawful because deputies observed a speeding violation (67 mph) providing probable cause. | Stop was pretextual and lacked probable cause. | Stop lawful; observed speeding supported traffic stop. |
| Was detention to conduct a canine sniff permissible? | Canine sniff during a traffic stop is permissible and did not unreasonably prolong detention. | No justification to detain for a canine sniff absent reasonable suspicion. | Sniff permissible during the ordinary duration of the stop; detention not impermissibly expanded. |
| Were the post-transport searches (strip/body-cavity) unconstitutional? | Even if searches were improper, evidence would have been inevitably discovered via pending warrant application. | Searches violated R.C. 2933.32 and Fourth Amendment; evidence should be suppressed. | Court assumed searches might be improper but applied inevitable-discovery because officers were actively seeking warrants when drugs were produced. |
| Did facts support probable cause to obtain warrants for persons? | Totality of circumstances (CI tip, surveillance, CI money exchange, travel to high-crime area, canine alerts, association) established probable cause for warrants. | Negative vehicle searches after canine alerts undermine probable cause to search persons. | Probable cause existed under the totality of circumstances; inevitable-discovery and warrant process justified admission. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (upholding constitutionality of certain vehicle stops) (1976) (establishes seizure for Fourth Amendment)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996) (an officer may stop for traffic violation even if motivated by other suspicions)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (2008) (probable cause implies reasonable articulable suspicion for stops)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of review for suppression hearing findings)
- State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 (2007) (scope/duration of traffic stop and permissible activities during stop)