State v. Richardson, 2021 Ohio 2751

Norwood officers responded to a call about a disturbance at a residence and were directed to the backyard, where they encountered two men by a car.
One man, Theodore Steinle, was identified, arrested on open warrants, and found to possess what appeared to be methamphetamine.
Officer Harrison observed William Richardson move around the car, make furtive movements, and reach toward the ground; Harrison asked if Richardson had anything illegal.
Richardson said he did not and (according to officers) said words to the effect of "you can search," removed items from his pockets, and adopted a stance facilitating a frisk.
Officer Harrison searched Richardson and recovered a baggie of methamphetamine and paraphernalia; the encounter was captured on body camera, but audio was largely obscured.
Richardson moved to suppress, arguing the initial detention lacked reasonable suspicion, the search exceeded Terry authority and was without consent; the trial court credited officers and denied suppression; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officers' initial encounter and direction for Richardson to return constituted a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion	Encounter was consensual; officers lawfully approached to investigate a disturbance and identify individuals	Fornash's directive to "come over here" was a show of authority converting the encounter into a seizure lacking reasonable suspicion	The contact was consensual under the totality of circumstances; no seizure occurred, so no reasonable-suspicion requirement applied
Whether the search of Richardson was justified by voluntary consent	Richardson verbally and by conduct consented ("you can search," removed items, assumed search posture); no warrant needed for consensual search	Audio is unclear and officer commands show coercion; no reasonable basis for a search and no proof of voluntary consent	Trial court credited officers; consent found voluntary under totality of circumstances; search lawful
Whether officer safety commands or repeated instructions negated consent or rendered the search an unlawful seizure/frisk beyond Terry	Commands were reasonable safety precautions after consent; officers may direct compliance to ensure a safe search	Officer directives ("hands on the hood", threat of handcuffs) show coercion and inconsistent with voluntary consent	Commands deemed permissible safety measures that did not revoke consent; no evidence Richardson revoked consent

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (approach and brief questioning can be consensual; a seizure requires a show of authority or restraint)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may perform limited protective searches for weapons under reasonable suspicion)
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988) (seizure questions are resolved from the totality of the circumstances)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (state bears burden to prove consent to search was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (appellate review of suppression is mixed: defer to trial court findings of fact, review legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997) (officers need not inform a person of the right to refuse consent)