State v. Shaw
2011 Ohio 3331
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Deputy Moore sought and obtained a warrant from Miami County Municipal Court Judge Kemmer to search the person of Delaquan A. Myers and a white 1989 Oldsmobile, to be executed within three days.
- Controlled heroin purchases by CI #1 and CI #2 linked to a male known as “Juice,” with the car linked to Shaw via LEADS.
- CI #2 arranged a heroin delivery in Miami County on July 14, 2009; surveillance located the Oldsmobile, Shaw and Works were identified, and the vehicle was stopped; officers smelled burnt marijuana on the interior.
- A female detective later searched Crystal Works and found twenty-five capsules of heroin hidden in her underwear; Shaw was arrested, Mirandized, and made incriminating statements attributing ownership to him.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion; Shaw pleaded no contest to three trafficking counts and was sentenced with vehicle forfeiture pending appeal.
- Appellant challenges the stop/search as unconstitutional, the length of detention, and the standing to challenge Works’ search; the state defends the warrant, stop, and search as lawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop/search was valid under the automobile exception | Shaw argues no valid probable cause beyond an anticipatory warrant. | State contends probable cause existed from controlled buys and vehicle linkage. | Stop/search upheld; probable cause and automobile exception apply. |
| Whether the detention was unconstitutionally prolonged | Shaw claims excessive detention to search Works. | State contends detaining Shaw to search Works was reasonable. | Detention not unconstitutionally prolonged. |
| Whether Shaw has standing to challenge Works’ personal search | Shaw asserts rights in the seizure via ownership/possession of the contraband. | State and Works’ rights require personal standing; Shaw lacks standing. | Shaw lacks standing to challenge Works’ search; suppression affirmed on warrant/probable cause analysis. |
| Whether evidence on Works’ person should be suppressed given the stop/search | Not necessary to address independently due to standing ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1968) (concepts of reasonable expectation of privacy and stop-and-search standard)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999) (automobile exception to the warrant requirement)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (2000) (totality-of-the-circumstances for probable cause)
- State v. Jones, 2002-Ohio-4681 (2002) (probable cause to associate object with criminal activity)
- State v. Kessler, 53 Ohio St.2d 204 (1978) (probable cause in vehicle searches; Carroll principle)
- State v. Folk, 74 Ohio App.3d 468 (1991) (anticipatory warrants and timing of searches)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (detention must be limited to accomplish the stop’s purpose)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (personal privacy and standing in searches)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (automobile exception and probable cause standard)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) ( Fourth Amendment privacy expectations)