State v. Robinson
2012 Ohio 2428
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Robinson stopped for traffic violations by Wooster officer; canine sniff conducted after stop; marijuana and cocaine found during searches; money removed from pocket during Terry search; defense movant sought suppression arguing illegal stop/search; trial court denied suppression; appellate reversal requested.
- Robinson’s truck registered to him; prior drug conviction known to officer; stop occurred in an area known for drug trafficking; K9 alerted to odor of drugs; Robinson exited vehicle and was handcuffed during proceedings.
- K9 alert preceded and during safety measures; evidence obtained from pockets and socks at issue; marijuana and cocaine recovered; alleged consent disputed; offense counts charged for possession of drugs.
- Court concluded suppression should have been granted; searches of pockets and socks violated Fourth Amendment; lack of valid consent and absence of proper Terry/search-incident-to-arrest justification; evidence to be excluded.
- Judgment reversed; remanded with mandate to suppress the seized evidence; costs taxed to appellee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search of Robinson’s person was valid under the Fourth Amendment. | Robinson; search justified by Terry pat-down and consent. | State; search justified by canine alert and incident to arrest. | Search invalid; exclusion warranted. |
| Whether Robinson consented to the search of his pockets and socks. | Robinson consented to a Terry pat-down, not to a pocket search. | Consent extended to search of pockets. | Consent not proven; scope exceeded Terry search. |
| Whether the search could be justified as a search incident to arrest. | Search incident to arrest supported by probable cause from marijuana. | Minor misdemeanor arrest not valid; no probable cause for full search. | Not justified as a search incident to arrest. |
| Whether the pocket search violated the plain-feel or Terry doctrine. | Pocket object felt could be contraband; plain-feel supports seizure. | No clear contraband identified by touch; not justified. | Not justified; plain-feel does not authorize pocket search. |
| Whether the sock search was lawful under Terry or consent. | Search of sock improper; no weapon/contraband identified by pat-down. | Consent implied by prior agreement; Terry justification. | Not justified; sock search invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003-Ohio-5372) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings; factual findings given deference)
- State v. Kay, 2009-Ohio-4801 (9th Dist. 2009) (canine alert alone does not provide probable cause to search or arrest occupants)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) (allowing orderly exits of occupants during traffic stops)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk framework and limited pat-down for weapons)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-feel doctrine; limits on recognizing contraband by touch during Terry search)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (1991) (reasonable suspicion for weapons during investigative stop)
- State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993) (plain-touch doctrine in pat-down searches)
- Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio St.3d 295 (1999) (burden on state to prove warrantless search reasonable)
- State v. Comen, 50 Ohio St.3d 206 (1990) (consent scope governs warrantless searches)
- State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323 (2003-Ohio-3931) (limits on search incident to arrest where no valid probable cause)
- United States v. Gant, 112 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. 1997) (search-incident-to-arrest scope limitations)