2015 Ohio 3715
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On January 4, 2014 police stopped a vehicle driven by Patrick Miller; Roland A. Mote was a passenger. Miller was stopped for a traffic violation.
- While the officer was writing a citation, a K-9 unit arrived about four minutes after the stop and conducted a canine sniff around the exterior of the vehicle.
- The K-9 alerted to the presence of illegal substances; officers then ordered the driver and passenger out, conducted pat-downs, and searched the vehicle.
- Mote was indicted on multiple counts (including a pattern-of-corrupt-activity count and breaking-and-entering counts); he moved to suppress evidence seized after the stop, arguing his detention was unlawfully extended and any search lacked voluntary consent.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress; after a jury trial Mote was convicted on several counts and sentenced to an aggregate 10-year term. Mote appealed, challenging the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unlawfully extended by the K-9 sniff and subsequent search | The stop had not been completed when the K-9 arrived (only ~4 minutes had elapsed while officer wrote citation); a canine sniff of a lawfully detained vehicle is permissible and the K-9 alert supplied probable cause to search. | The detention was unlawfully prolonged; Mote (and Miller) were not free to leave and therefore any search/search-related evidence must be suppressed for lack of voluntary consent. | Court affirmed denial of suppression: the sniff occurred during the lawful duration of the stop, the K-9 alerted, giving probable cause to search, so evidence was admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of review for suppression: trial court factual findings given deference; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (fruit of unconstitutional searches/seizures excluded under the Fourth Amendment)
- Place v. United States, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (exterior canine sniff is not a Fourth Amendment search)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (canine sniff during a lawful traffic stop that does not prolong the stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (automobile exception: warrantless vehicle searches permitted when probable cause exists)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent is a factor but not required where other grounds for search exist)