State v. Scarberry
72 N.E.3d 173
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Scarberry was charged with one count of possession of drugs (felony 5) after a traffic stop in Franklin County, Ohio on Nov. 8, 2013.
- A suppression motion challenging the search was denied after a suppression hearing on May 7, 2015, prior to plea of no contest.
- Officer Hughes testified the stop was for a traffic violation; audio was not recorded; the stop led to a pat-down search.
- During the pat-down, a cigarette pack containing apparent heroin was found; a syringe was later recovered, and Scarberry was arrested.
- Video evidence showed the pat-down and search were conducted with Scarberry's consent, though the consent timing and detention status were disputed.
- The trial court denied suppression; on July 15, 2015 Scarberry was convicted and sentenced to five years of community control; the State appeals seeking to uphold the search, while Scarberry seeks suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the search of Scarberry lawful after the traffic stop ended? | State contends the stop remained lawful under Terry until completion of the stop. | Scarberry contends the search occurred after the stop ended, absent continued lawful justification. | Remand required; the court held the continued detention was unlawful and the search tainted by that unlawful detention. |
| Was Scarberry's consent to the pat-down voluntary under the totality of the circumstances given an unlawful detention? | State argues consent was voluntary despite detention. | Scarberry argues consent cannot be voluntary if tainted by unlawful detention. | Remand to determine voluntariness under the standard applicable to unlawful detention. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Limoli, 2012-Ohio-4502 (10th Dist. No. 11AP-924, 2012-Ohio-4502) (standard for voluntariness when detention is lawful; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Lattimore, 2003-Ohio-6829 (10th Dist.) (factors for voluntariness of consent; taint from illegal detention)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997) (analysis of stop/detention; consent post-stop; later Robinette lineage (Robinette III))
- State v. Robinette, 1996-Ohio-23 (U.S. Supreme Court (Robinette II)) (consent search not required to inform being free to leave; totality of circumstances standard)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (mixed question of law and fact in suppression; de novo standard on appeal)