State v. Olmstead
2018 Ohio 971
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Nov. 9, 2016, police had a valid search warrant for a residence at 139 Maple Street and for the person/cell phone of Desmond Evege as a suspected drug location.
- Detective Evans observed Evege and others exit the residence and later found Evege and three other men near a BP station; Evans smelled burnt marijuana from the group.
- Evans directed Patrolman Neumann to approach and search appellant Brandon Olmstead, who was standing about ten yards from the group; Neumann testified he smelled burnt marijuana on Olmstead and found a cellophane wrapper containing marijuana “roaches.”
- Olmstead was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia and moved to suppress the items found on his person; the trial court denied the motion after a suppression hearing and found Olmstead not credible.
- Olmstead pled no contest, was convicted, and appealed arguing the evidence was unlawfully obtained by police.
- The municipal court conviction was affirmed by the Fifth District, which held the encounter became a valid Terry stop supported by reasonable suspicion and that the odor of marijuana provided probable cause for the search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Olmstead) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial police contact was lawful | Contact was a consensual encounter and lawful | Contact escalated impermissibly to a seizure without grounds | Court: initial contact was consensual but later became a Terry stop |
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain Olmstead | Smell of burnt marijuana from the group and odor on Olmstead gave reasonable suspicion | Officers lacked specific facts tying Olmstead to criminal activity; proximity insufficient | Court: odor evidence and circumstances provided reasonable suspicion to justify the Terry stop |
| Whether officer was qualified to identify marijuana odor | Officer’s experience (school, military, patrol encounters) qualified him to identify odor | Olmstead challenged qualifications to identify odor reliably | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; officer sufficiently qualified to testify about smell |
| Whether search of Olmstead was supported by probable cause | Smell of marijuana by a qualified officer (plus proximity to warrant subject) established probable cause for a warrantless search | Search exceeded Terry scope and lacked probable cause | Court: following Ohio precedent, odor alone (by qualified observer) established probable cause for search; search lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (established standard for investigatory stops)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reasonable suspicion/probable cause reviewed de novo)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (consensual encounters in public places)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (odor of marijuana by qualified person can establish probable cause)
- United States v. Weaver, 282 F.3d 302 (contacts can cross from consensual to seizure)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (standards for appellate review of suppression rulings)