State v. Owensby
2022 Ohio 1702
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Middletown police stopped a white Kia after a reliable confidential informant reported Owensby (a known drug offender) was leaving nearby apartments in that car with a "large quantity of drugs." The driver (Carmody) had a suspended license and a warrant and was arrested.
- Owensby, a front-seat passenger, was patted down for weapons after a bulletin reported he had threatened the driver with a gun; officers found he had about $2,500 in cash and seated him on a planter.
- A patrol narcotics dog (Koda) alerted on the passenger seat; a subsequent automobile search revealed a drawstring bag with ~30 grams of marijuana, which Owensby admitted was his.
- A less-experienced officer conducted a "jail-type" search of Owensby and found nothing; shortly thereafter Officer Jordan performed a more intrusive "credit-card" search (hands along groin) and felt a hard object in Owensby’s underwear fly that tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl.
- Owensby was indicted; the trial court granted his motion to suppress the drugs, reasoning the earlier searches dissipated reasonable suspicion. The state appealed and the appellate court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Owensby's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of the initial traffic stop and weapons pat-down | Stop lawful (suspended license/warrant for driver); pat-down reasonable given bulletin about a gun and drug-offender status | Concedes initial stop and pat-down lawful | Undisputed lawful; no Fourth Amendment violation for stop or weapons pat-down |
| Canine sniff and vehicle search | Dog sniff lawful; Koda's alert supplied probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception | Continued detention and canine/vehicle search unconstitutionally prolonged | Canine sniff was not a search; alert gave probable cause to search the vehicle |
| Probable cause to search Owensby's person after vehicle search found marijuana | Totality (CI tip corroborated, canine hit, marijuana recovered, cash, extreme nervousness) established probable cause to search Owensby | Officer Smith's "jail-type" search found nothing, so suspicion dissipated and no probable cause existed for further searches | Probable cause existed to search Owensby based on the totality of circumstances (CI corroboration, dog alert, admitted marijuana, etc.) |
| Warrantless searches of Owensby's person (including "credit-card" search) and exigent circumstances | Warrantless searches justified because narcotics can be quickly hidden/destroyed and officer reasonably questioned adequacy of prior search | No exigent circumstances; later searches were not justified and required a warrant | Warrantless searches were reasonable and justified by exigent circumstances and by concern about adequacy of the prior search; suppression was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passenger in a stopped vehicle is "seized" and may challenge constitutionality of the stop)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is the touchstone of search analysis)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (appellate courts review probable-cause findings de novo while accepting trial court fact findings)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is assessed under the totality of the circumstances)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (2000) (officer's detection of marijuana odor can supply probable cause to search vehicle and person; exigency doctrine for narcotics)
- Bowling Green v. Godwin, 110 Ohio St.3d 58 (2006) (Ohio constitutional jurisprudence on searches and seizures and the reasonableness standard)