State v. Showes
2020 Ohio 650
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Police dispatch reported two men in dark clothing "possibly trying to get into" a hobby shop; no time, race, weapon, or detailed descriptors were provided.
- Officer Alexander Berlin arrived about two minutes later and found Recah Showes, the only male present, standing outside an adjacent bar wearing a Cheesecake Factory uniform and smoking.
- Berlin ordered Showes to approach; Showes stepped back toward the bar, said he didn’t want trouble or to go back to jail, and placed his hands in his pockets; Berlin smelled marijuana.
- Berlin detained Showes, placed his hands behind his back, and conducted a pat-down, feeling and retrieving a loaded .38-caliber handgun from Showes’s right pocket.
- Showes moved to suppress the gun and drugs as fruits of an unlawful stop and frisk; the trial court denied the motion, Showes pled no-contest, and was convicted and sentenced.
- The First District Court of Appeals held the pat-down unconstitutional because the officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Showes was armed and dangerous; it reversed the denial of suppression and the convictions, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of the initial stop | Dispatch description plus proximity to reported suspicious persons justified brief detention | Dispatch was vague, no recent or specific criminal activity tied to Showes; no contemporaneous suspicious conduct | Not reached — court disposed of case on frisk issue and did not decide stop’s constitutionality |
| Legality of the pat-down (Terry frisk) | Officer observed distancing, hands in pockets, nervousness, and smelled marijuana — reasonable to suspect danger | Those behaviors alone (distancing, hands in pockets, nervousness, marijuana odor) are insufficient to support belief Showes was armed and dangerous | Pat-down unconstitutional: officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion that Showes was armed and dangerous; evidence suppressed; convictions reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes limited stop-and-frisk standard: officer may frisk if reasonably believes suspect is armed and dangerous)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (evidence obtained from unconstitutional search or seizure is inadmissible)
- State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993) (Ohio application of Terry requiring specific facts to justify a frisk)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (1991) (officer must have reasonable, objective basis to conduct a pat-down)
- State v. Ward, 98 N.E.3d 1257 (Ohio 2017) (appellate review standard for suppression rulings and application of Terry principles)