2020 Ohio 118
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Trooper stopped a southbound Honda Accord after testifying he saw it change lanes without signaling and cross the fog line; he also had an old tip that the plate had been used to transport drugs.
- On approach Trooper Lewis saw a small amount of marijuana on the center console and asked defendant Steven Nolan to exit the vehicle.
- Nolan raised his hands when the trooper requested a pat‑down; during the pat‑down the trooper felt a hard object in the groin/buttock area he believed might be contraband or a weapon.
- Nolan pulled away, reached toward his pants, fled and assaulted the trooper; the trooper ultimately recovered the object, which tested as ~80 grams of heroin.
- Nolan pleaded no contest to possession, assault, and escape after the trial court denied his motion to suppress; the court of appeals affirmed the denial and the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Nolan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Trooper observed lane‑change without signal and fog‑line crossings; stop lawful. | Trooper’s signal‑violation testimony not credible (omitted from report/video) so no reasonable suspicion. | Court credited trooper testimony; reasonable suspicion supported the stop. |
| 2. Did the officer unlawfully expand the stop after ID was checked? | Plain‑view marijuana on center console supplied reasonable suspicion to expand detention. | Marijuana observation was negligible/unreliable; expansion was unsupported. | Court found marijuana observation credible; expansion was justified. |
| 3. Did the pat‑down exceed a lawful Terry frisk or lack consent? | Pat‑down was justified (Terry/consent); Nolan raised hands consenting; search limited to outer clothing/weapon areas. | Pat‑down exceeded scope (manipulation, search between buttocks); consent was coerced/submission. | Court held consent was voluntary and/or frisk was within Terry scope; search lawful. |
| 4. Was Nolan arrested without probable cause? | Plain‑feel of a hard object (plus tip, in‑car marijuana, defendant’s flight/assault) gave probable cause to seize and arrest. | Amount of marijuana only minor misdemeanor; plain‑feel did not make contraband identity immediately apparent. | Court held plain‑feel (and totality of facts) gave probable cause; arrest valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (establishes warrantless‑search reasonableness principle)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (authorizes limited frisk for weapons during investigative stops)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (Terry scope and the plain‑feel doctrine)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (prohibits prolonging a traffic stop absent reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (traffic stop may be based on de minimis violation; limits to unrelated prolongation)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (officer may order driver out of vehicle during stop)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (standards for voluntariness of consent to search)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (consent to search may be voluntary without formal advisals)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (custody alone does not automatically invalidate consent)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)