State v. Rappley, 2013 Ohio 964

Officer Humphrey and partner conducted routine patrol near a high-crime Dayton area building on Aug. 4, 2011.
Rappley was observed carrying what appeared to be a woman’s purse and ducked behind a bush with a female companion.
The officers approached Rappley; Rappley cooperated during initial contact and identified himself.
Officer Humphrey announced a plan to conduct a pat-down for safety due to Rappley’s evasive behavior and location.
A warm crack pipe with crack cocaine was found in Rappley’s pocket during the pat-down; Rappley stated he had “just hit it.”
Rappley was indicted for possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia; he moved to suppress the evidence and statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the encounter was consensual or became a detention.	State argues initial encounter was consensual; later detention based on reasonable suspicion.	Rappley contends the encounter was an illegal seizure and pat-down unsupported by suspicion.	Encounter started consensual and became a valid investigatory detention.
Whether there was reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the pat-down.	State asserts totality of circumstances supported a protective pat-down.	Rappley claims lack of reasonable suspicion to search for weapons.	There were reasonable articulable facts supporting the pat-down.

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard for reviewing suppression findings; competent evidence applied to legal standards)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio 1982) (historical fact review; independent legal determination)
State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (Ohio 4th Dist. 1997) (trust in appellate review of suppression determinations)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (de novo review of reasonable suspicion but deferential to factual findings)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (definition of consensual encounter; free to leave unless restrained)