State v. Moore
2014 Ohio 2979
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Police observed Moore make an unsignaled turn, attempted a traffic stop, then stopped him on I-90 for another alleged failure to signal.
- Officer Kopchek saw Moore stuffing a clear plastic bag into his waistband and, after stopping the car, removed Moore, handcuffed him, and conducted a pat-down.
- During the pat-down a hard cylindrical object was felt; as Moore moved, plastic bags fell from his pants onto the ground and tested positive for heroin; Moore was arrested.
- Officers searched the vehicle after the arrest and recovered six cell phones and $4,859; Moore moved to suppress all evidence obtained during the stop.
- Moore pled no contest; trial court merged allied counts, sentenced him to six years (trafficking) and one year (criminal tools) to run concurrently, ordered forfeiture and a mandatory fine and court costs.
- On appeal, Moore challenged the denial of his suppression motion, the imposition and amount of the mandatory fine and court costs, and whether the court considered statutory sentencing criteria.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop | Officer observed traffic violation(s) (unsignaled turn) justifying stop | Stop was unlawful (Moore denied failing to signal) | Stop lawful; trial court’s credibility finding for officer upheld |
| Removal, pat-down, and seizure of drugs | Officer had reasonable suspicion to remove and pat-down Moore after seeing him conceal a bag; drugs fell into plain view during pat-down | Pat-down/unlawful removal exceeded Terry; evidence seized unlawfully | Pat-down and removal reasonable under Terry; drugs observed in plain view, so seizure lawful |
| Seizure of money and vehicle search | Vehicle search incident to arrest/Gant and officer testimony support recovery of money from car | Moore disputed where money was recovered and scope exceeded Terry | Trial court credited officer; vehicle search lawful incident to arrest; appellate court defers to credibility findings |
| Mandatory fine and court costs (procedural defects) | Court properly imposed mandatory fine absent timely-filed indigency affidavit | Moore argued court failed to consider indigency and failed to pronounce amount/costs at hearing | Court erred by imposing specific fine and court costs only in journal entry (not pronounced at sentencing); indigency affidavit was untimely under Gipson so fine imposition not barred but remand required for resentencing limited to fine and to allow motion to waive costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (warrant requirement and expectations of privacy)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (permitting investigative stops and limited protective pat-downs)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1993) (plain-feel doctrine for contraband discovered in lawful pat-down)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- State v. Preztak, 181 Ohio App.3d 106 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review for suppression hearings)
- State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (Ohio 1998) (requirement that indigency affidavit be filed with clerk before sentencing journal entry to avoid mandatory fine)