State v. Roby
2017 Ohio 7331
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 2, 2015 a Franklin County Grand Jury indicted Ryan M. Roby for possession of cocaine and tampering with evidence based on an incident where Bexley Officer John Kim stopped Roby and a companion, Melissa Laurie, on August 29, 2014.
- Officer Kim knew (and verified by radio) of a Whitehall Mayor’s Court bench warrant for Roby for failure to pay a fine imposed after a petty-theft conviction. The stop occurred outside Bexley city limits, in Columbus.
- Upon approach, Officer Kim informed Roby he had a warrant and was under arrest. Kim observed Roby move behind Laurie and pass an object to her; Laurie then threw an item toward the patrol cruiser. Officers recovered straws and a bindle that field-tested positive for heroin.
- Roby moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court granted suppression, concluding the execution of the Whitehall warrant by a Bexley officer in Columbus violated R.C. 2935.10(B) and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution.
- The State appealed, arguing (inter alia) the seizure occurred after Roby abandoned the contraband, R.C. 2935.10(B) did not apply, suppression was not an appropriate remedy even if the arrest violated the statute, and suppression was not required to deter police misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the seizure occur? | Seizure occurred only when Kim physically detained Roby (after Roby passed contraband). | Seizure occurred when Kim stopped and told Roby he was under arrest. | Seizure occurred at initial stop/show of authority (before passage to Laurie). |
| Did R.C. 2935.10(B) prohibit the arrest? | The warrant was a bench warrant for failure to pay a fine and is governed by other statutes (e.g., R.C. 2935.02); 2935.10(B) does not apply. | 2935.10(B) limits who may execute misdemeanor/ordinance warrants and thus the stop was unlawful. | 2935.10(B) does not apply to the bench warrant here; the trial court erred to the extent it relied on 2935.10(B). |
| Did the trial court need to resolve state-constitutional suppression? | State contends statutory analysis removes the basis for the trial court’s Article I, §14 ruling and remand can permit further consideration. | Defendant relied on Article I, §14 to suppress evidence based on lack of statutory authority for the extraterritorial stop. | Appellate court declined to resolve the Article I, §14 question and remanded; trial court may reconsider constitutional issues after addressing other statutes. |
| Was suppression appropriate remedy on these facts? | Even if technical violations occurred, suppression may not be proper; remand allowed further consideration of remedy. | Suppression was proper due to unlawful stop/arrest. | Court reversed suppression and remanded for further proceedings; did not endorse suppression now. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (show of authority can effect a seizure; submission required for seizure)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (no seizure where suspect flees and does not submit; abandoned items during flight are not fruit of a seizure)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard governing searches)
- State v. Brown, 143 Ohio St.3d 444 (Ohio may provide greater protection under Article I, §14 for extraterritorial stops)