State v. Reece
2016 Ohio 7805
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Dec. 2015 Dayton detectives were investigating a shooting of a two‑year‑old and pinged a suspect’s phone to a Westown Shopping Center parking lot.
- Detectives found Damion Reece seated in an SUV passenger seat; they approached with guns drawn and ordered him to place his hands up.
- Detective Daugherty determined Reece was not the identified suspect, asked for ID, and Reece reached with his left hand to his back pocket for his wallet while his right arm moved across his waistband.
- The detective described that right‑arm motion as odd/guarding, reached toward Reece’s waistband, and was shoved away; he then felt a gun in Reece’s waistband during the reach.
- Reece was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon and weapons under disability; he moved to suppress the gun as the product of an unlawful pat‑down.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence, finding the arm movement was a natural motion, not a furtive gesture; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct a pat‑down for weapons | The totality (proximity to ping, high‑crime area, odd arm movement, officer experience, shove) justified a protective frisk | The movement was a natural motion while retrieving a wallet; Reece was cooperative and known not to be the suspect, so no reasonable suspicion | The trial court did not err: no reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the pat‑down; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes that officers need reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous before a pat‑down)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (appellate standard of review for suppression: accept trial court’s factual findings, de novo review of law)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (evaluate reasonable suspicion through eyes of reasonable, prudent officer on scene)
- State v. Wilcox, 177 Ohio App.3d 609 (high‑crime area is a factor but not alone sufficient for protective search)
- State v. Abner, 194 Ohio App.3d 523 (furtive movements alone insufficient but may be considered in totality)