State v. Nocon
2012 Ohio 395
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Trooper stopped Nocon on the Ohio Turnpike after observing lane violations; he smelled marijuana when Nocon rolled down the window.
- Nocon admitted someone had smoked marijuana in the van and there was marijuana in two places.
- K-9 Diego alerted on the driver’s door; Trooper Smith searched the van and found marijuana and psilocyn.
- Nocon moved to suppress the evidence, arguing lack of reasonable suspicion and improper search.
- Lorain County Court of Common Pleas denied suppression; Nocon pleaded no contest and was convicted and sentenced to two years.
- Nocon appeals the denial of suppression, asserting Fourth Amendment violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop/search violated the Fourth Amendment. | Nocon argues no probable cause; stop was racially motivated. | State argues odor and dog alert provided probable cause. | No error; probable cause supported search. |
| Credibility of the State’s probable-cause evidence. | Nocon contends lack of credible odor evidence given quantity and wind. | State credibly testified to odor and corroborating facts. | Credibility supported; no reversible error. |
| Whether the search was valid under the automobile exception. | Search exceeded authority; impoundment required. | Automobile exception allowed search with probable cause. | Search valid under automobile exception. |
| Whether profiling influenced the search. | Long hair appearance indicative of profiling. | Search based on odor, admission, and dog alert. | No improper profiling established. |
| Whether changing law is warranted limiting searches after minor misdemeanor odor. | Dog alert should not justify broader search if only minor misdemeanor involved. | Ohio law allows broad search after drug-dog alert. | Rule consistent with state drug-dog precedents; requires no change. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993) (legitimate safety detentions and protective measures; safety concerns do not preclude valid searches with probable cause)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (2000) (drug-dog alert provides probable cause to search an automobile)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest; automobile exception analyzed)
- State v. Tooson, 2009-Ohio-6269 (2009) (drug-dog alert and vehicle search considerations)
- Blue Ash v. Kavanagh, 113 Ohio St.3d 67 (2007) (drug-dog alert supports probable cause to search; standards applied in Ohio)