2023 Ohio 1550
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Officer Runyan stopped a Hyundai driven by Ja’Braelin Oliver around 12:30 a.m. after observing brief lane-line contact; he believed he saw two marked-lane violations.
- Upon approaching, Runyan smelled raw marijuana coming from the vehicle (not from any particular occupant), radioed for backup, then removed and handcuffed Oliver and conducted a pat-down.
- The pat-down yielded a grinder and a loaded handgun in Oliver’s jacket pocket; the vehicle search produced only trace marijuana.
- Trial court denied Oliver’s suppression motion, crediting Runyan’s testimony and concluding the smell justified detention and search; Oliver pled no contest to two felony gun counts and appealed.
- The court of appeals held the traffic stop was supported by probable cause, but the warrantless search of Oliver’s person was unlawful because the odor alone—emanating from the car and not particularized to Oliver—did not give probable cause to search his person; convictions vacated and case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Oliver) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop | Runyan observed marked-lane violations so he had probable cause to stop the vehicle | Tire contact with a lane line did not constitute a violation (defense relied on Turner jurisprudence) | Stop upheld: officer had probable cause because cruiser video and testimony showed the tire fully crossed the solid yellow outer line and touched the dashed inner line, justifying the stop |
| Warrantless pat-down based on marijuana odor | Odor of raw marijuana from the car justified prolonged detention and search of occupants under the plain-smell/automobile reasoning | Odor alone was not particularized to Oliver (five occupants present); hemp/medical-marijuana regime undercuts Moore’s core inference | Search of Oliver’s person invalid: odor from the vehicle did not give particularized probable cause to search Oliver |
| Protective frisk under Terry | (Raised on appeal) frisk was permissible for officer safety because drugs often correlate with weapons | No individualized, articulable suspicion that Oliver was armed and dangerous; state did not argue a Terry justification below | Waived: state failed to advance or develop Terry justification at trial, so appellate court declined to consider it |
| Exceptions and remedies (good-faith, inevitable discovery) | On appeal, state invoked good-faith and inevitable-discovery doctrines to salvage evidence | Evidence is fruit of unconstitutional search and must be suppressed; trial record lacks basis for inevitable-discovery | Waived or rejected: inevitable-discovery was not argued below (waived); good-faith objectively unreasonable here — exclusionary rule applies and evidence suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes limited frisk when officer reasonably suspects person is armed and dangerous)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (2000) (odor of marijuana can supply probable cause to search a vehicle; exigent circumstances may justify search of sole occupant)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (probable cause must be particularized to the person to be searched)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (traffic stop reasonable when officer observes a traffic violation)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (definition of probable cause)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) (probable cause standard explained)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (objectively reasonable mistake of law can sometimes justify a seizure)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (passengers may be frisked during a traffic stop if officer reasonably suspects they are armed and dangerous)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applies to the states)