2014 Ohio 2865
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Purvis was arrested March 24, 2013 for OVI and underage alcohol consumption; charged in Wayne County.
- Purvis moved to suppress, claiming police lacked reasonable suspicion; trial court granted suppression.
- Officer Laskowski encountered Purvis near a house party on Cedar Lane; observed Purvis after exit from a vehicle.
- Purvis testified officer ordered him to stop, shined a flashlight in his face, and he felt not free to leave.
- The trial court credited Purvis over the officer, ruling the encounter was not consensual; State appealed.
- Appellate court affirmed suppression, reviewing the totality of the circumstances for consensual encounter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the encounter was consensual under the totality of circumstances | Purvis/State argued the encounter was consensual and voluntary | Purvis argued the encounter was non-consensual due to police authority and flashlight | Not consensual; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003-Ohio-5372) (appellate review of suppression is mixed law and fact)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (consensual encounter defined; not seized absent coercion)
- State v. Rackow, 2008-Ohio-507 (2008-Ohio-507) (consensual encounter analysis is objective under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Patterson, 2006-Ohio-5424 (2006-Ohio-5424) (distinguishes non-coercive encounters from coercive ones)
- State v. Goodloe, 2013-Ohio-4934 (2013-Ohio-4934) (accusatory questioning and authority may affect voluntariness)