State v. Shorts
2011 Ohio 6202
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Lawfully patrolling unmarked in Lorain in a high crime area; observed a known drug house at 3195 Victory Ave; suspect identified as Shorts after a pill bottle with heroin packaging was recovered; officer field-tested heroin from the bottle yielding a positive result; Shorts was charged with possession of heroin and paraphernalia; suppression motion denied; Shorts pleaded no contest to possession and the judgment was appealed.
- Detectives testified Wardell’s residence was a suspected drug house; they followed Shorts from Wardell’s residence to Factory Avenue where Shorts allegedly walked in the roadway; Shorts’s vehicle was later found parked on Factory; a rescue stop occurred when Shorts threw up his hands and a pill bottle landed in a tree lawn; the bottle contained foil packaging consistent with heroin.
- Trial court found Shorts walked in the roadway in violation of COL 371.05(a) and that detectives had reasonable suspicion and probable cause; the fingerprint of the odor and packaging supported probable cause to arrest after field test; judgment of conviction affirmed on appeal.
- The court addressed suppression challenges, held the stop reasonable under Terry and applicable Ohio standards, and affirmed that officers had both reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the stop and ensuing arrest.
- The conviction and sentence were affirmed, with costs taxed to Shorts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause? | Shorts argues no lawful stop. | State argues four-factor totality shows reasonable suspicion and probable cause. | Stop upheld; reasonable suspicion and probable cause found. |
| Were the trial court’s findings of fact supported by competent, credible evidence? | Shorts challenges certain factual findings. | State asserts credibility determinations reside with the trial court. | Findings supported; credibility properly weighed. |
| Did Shorts have probable cause to violate the jaywalking ordinance by crossing Factory Street? | Salas-like jaywalking argument; not applicable here. | Col 371.05 applies; walking in roadway violated; sidewalk practicable. | Not meritorious; ordinance violation supported. |
| Did detectives have probable cause to arrest for possession of heroin/drug paraphernalia after discovering the bottle? | Probable cause dependent on field test; timing contested. | Officer testimony and packaging consistent with heroin; field test confirmed. | Probable cause to arrest established; test corroborated re: heroin. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (mixed law/fact review for suppression; trial court as fact-finder)
- State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (accept trial court findings if supported by competent evidence; de novo legal review)
- State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706 (1997) (credibility and dismissal of findings; appellate de novo on legal conclusions)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (valid scope of stop; governing standard for probable cause/suspicion)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (guides credibility and weight of witness testimony in suppression)