State v. Reed
2017 Ohio 2644
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- METRICH detectives surveilling a vehicle (white Dodge Charger with black pinstripes) observed what they believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction in an American Legion parking lot; detectives followed the Charger and relayed observations to a uniformed officer.
- Patrolman Gladden (marked cruiser) located the Charger when it returned to the lot, called out to appellant (Rashad Reed) who was standing outside the car, and effectively placed him under arrest.
- After Gladden approached, he saw a plastic baggie protruding from Reed’s right pocket, conducted a pat-down/search, and recovered a rock of crack cocaine, a straw, and cash; a firearm and money were forfeited per specification.
- Reed filed a motion to suppress, arguing he was arrested at gunpoint without probable cause; the trial court denied the motion after a suppression hearing.
- Reed pleaded no contest, was sentenced to community control and fines, and appealed the denial of the suppression motion; the appellate majority affirmed, one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless arrest/search was supported by probable cause | METRICH detectives observed a hand-to-hand drug transaction and relayed that to Gladden; Gladden also observed a baggie in Reed’s pocket—totality supported probable cause | Reed contends Gladden had only hearsay from detectives, did not personally observe criminal activity, and the detectives saw only movements (not drugs); the baggie and contraband were noticed after arrest and cannot justify it | Court: Probable cause existed under the totality of circumstances (detective observations + Gladden’s sighting of baggie); suppression denied |
| Whether information from undercover detectives may support probable cause for Gladden’s arrest | Information from METRICH (common investigation) was reliable and may be used to establish probable cause | Reed argued Gladden could not rely solely on others’ observations for an arrest of him | Court: Officers engaged in a common investigation may rely on each other’s observations to establish probable cause |
| Whether items observed after the arrest can retroactively justify the arrest | State initially argued baggie seen prior to arrest; record shows baggie observed after Gladden approached—still argued totality supported probable cause | Reed argued post-arrest observations cannot justify the prior arrest; arrest occurred before baggie sighting | Court: Even considering the timeline, the combined information (detectives’ observations and Gladden’s training-based inference) provided probable cause; arrest upheld |
| Standard of appellate review for denial of suppression | State: de novo review of ultimate issue (probable cause) with deference to trial court facts | Reed: challenges the ultimate issue; appellate court applies de novo review to legal conclusion | Court: Accepted trial court fact findings if supported, reviewed legal conclusion de novo and affirmed trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (probable cause required for warrantless arrest)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (reviewing probable cause determinations under totality from perspective of a reasonable officer)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (information from co-investigators may support probable cause)
- Whitley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (similar principle on reliance among officers)
- State v. Henderson, 51 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio rule allowing officer-to-officer information to establish probable cause)
- State v. Otte, 74 Ohio St.3d 555 (warrantless arrest standard under Ohio law)
- State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148 (trial court credibility findings at suppression hearings entitled to deference)