State v. Roberts, 2016 Ohio 7327

On March 4, 2015 Officer Anderson observed Aaron Roberts driving; Anderson believed Roberts’ license had been suspended months earlier and ran a computer check from his cruiser that he testified confirmed the suspension. Anderson then activated his lights to stop Roberts.
Roberts exited his vehicle and fled on foot; during the chase he tossed a firearm to the ground. Officers recovered the firearm and charged Roberts with multiple offenses, including having a weapon while under disability and tampering with evidence.
Roberts moved to suppress the firearm as the fruit of an unlawful traffic stop; the trial court initially denied suppression and Roberts pled no-contest to weapon-under-disability in exchange for dismissal of other counts.
After the plea the court reopened the suppression issue; Lt. Moos testified he found no record of the in-cruiser LEADS search Anderson claimed to have run, suggesting the stop lacked current probable cause.
The trial court found the stop potentially problematic but ruled Roberts had abandoned the firearm when he threw it during the pursuit, so he lacked standing to challenge its admissibility; it entered conviction and a three-year sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence (the firearm) must be suppressed as fruit of an unlawful stop	State: firearm admissible because defendant abandoned it during flight, so no Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy	Roberts: he did not abandon the firearm but tampered with it to hide it; tampering is not abandonment, so suppression required if the stop was unlawful	Court: affirmed admission — tossing the gun during flight was abandonment (and could also constitute tampering); under Hodari D. discarded property during flight is not the fruit of a seizure

California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (discarded items abandoned while fleeing police are not the product of a Fourth Amendment "seizure" and thus not subject to suppression on that ground)
State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291 (1980) (abandonment determined by intent and circumstances; abandonment removes reasonable expectation of privacy and standing to challenge search)