State v. Miller
982 N.E.2d 739
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Miller appealed the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion filed April 29, 2008; hearing held December 2, 2008; suppression denied January 30, 2009; Miller timely appealed April 26, 2011.
- On March 17, 2008, police investigated drug activity at 834 Rosedale Dr., Dayton, based on residents’ complaints of an “active drug house.”
- Sgt. Spiers and associates conducted a “knock and advise” at the residence; Walton opened the door, closed it, and locked the door; officers detected marijuana odor and saw a scale and bags with marijuana inside.
- Police entered the residence, seized marijuana and a scale to preserve evidence, conducted a protective sweep, and found cocaine residue and cocaine in plain view; Miller was arrested; a warrant to search the remainder of the house was obtained after the sweep.
- Miller was indicted for possession of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana; a weapon under disability count was added; the trial court overruled the suppression motion; the court of appeals sustained the first assignment, reversed the judgment, vacated Miller’s convictions, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- The court held that the “knock and advise” procedure was coercive in this case, violated the Fourth Amendment, and that the suppression motion should have been sustained; remaining assignments were moot in light of the disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the knock and advise violated the Fourth Amendment. | Miller | State | Yes; suppression sustained. |
| Whether the remaining assignments are moot after ruling on suppression. | Miller | State | Moot; affirmed suppression ruling leads to reversal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521 (2d Dist. 1996) (facts and credibility of trial court findings; standard for reviewing suppression)
- State v. Venham, 96 Ohio App.3d 649 (2d Dist.1994) (consensual encounters and Fourth Amendment analysis)
- State v. Isaac, 2005-Ohio-3733 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20662) (trial court findings of fact reviewed for suppression)
- State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (2d Dist.1994) (standard for reviewing evidentiary suppression rulings)
- United States v. Cormier, 220 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir.2000) (knock and talk at residence; no adverse action required for consensual encounter)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (police knock and enter; occupancy choice to speak or consent depends on circumstances)