State v. Mosby, 2021 Ohio 2255

At ~2:00 a.m. on August 16, 2019, Toledo officers responded to a large crowd (≈25 people) in the Wayne Lot/Greenbelt Place Apartments, an area officers described as a high‑crime, gang‑activity location.
Officers observed open alcohol consumption and smelled burnt marijuana in the lot but did not observe occupants of appellant’s parked vehicle drinking or using drugs, nor did they localize the odor to that vehicle.
Officers decided to “stop everybody” in the lot for officer safety and identification checks; they ordered the occupants of appellant’s vehicle to exit. Appellant initially ignored the command and was pulled from the car.
During removal, officers observed and recovered a firearm from appellant’s waistband; he was indicted on multiple weapons and related charges, pleaded no contest, and was sentenced to an aggregate 42 months’ imprisonment.
Appellant moved to suppress the firearm evidence arguing the stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion; the trial court denied the motion relying on totality factors (high‑crime area, time, officer experience, appellant’s refusal to exit). The court of appeals reversed, concluding the stop was unsupported by reasonable suspicion and suppressible; the case was remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mosby)	Held
Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct an investigative (Terry) stop of appellant/vehicle	Totality supports suspicion: high‑crime location, late hour, officers’ gang suppression experience, observed crowd, open alcohol, odor of marijuana, and appellant’s refusal to exit	Officers lacked any particularized suspicion of appellant or his vehicle; observations related to other people in the lot cannot justify stopping everyone	Court: No. The officers lacked particularized reasonable suspicion as to appellant; stop invalid and evidence should be suppressed
Whether appellant’s delayed/reluctant exit could justify the stop	Refusal to comply was suspicious and supports detention	Appellant’s conduct occurred after the stop began and thus cannot justify initiating the stop	Court: Refusal occurred after detention began and is irrelevant to the legality of initiating the stop
Whether the firearm seized should be suppressed as fruit of an unlawful stop	Firearm was discovered during a lawful safety‑directed search/detention	Firearm is the fruit of an unconstitutional investigatory stop and must be suppressed	Court: Firearm is fruit of poisonous tree; suppression warranted; judgment reversed and remanded

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes investigative stop standard)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (totality of the circumstances and particularized suspicion test)
State v. Wesson, 137 Ohio St.3d 309 (2013) (standard of review for suppression: accept trial court facts, review legal conclusion de novo)
State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (1991) (totality factors relevant to reasonable suspicion)
State v. Carter, 69 Ohio St.3d 57 (1994) (high‑crime area alone insufficient to justify stop)
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (prohibits attributing suspicion of others to a particular person absent particularized facts)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine)
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (mere presence in a high‑crime area insufficient for reasonable suspicion)