2019 Ohio 2842
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Around 1:00 a.m. on Oct. 19, 2017, Miamisburg officers observed Starks’ vehicle cross the lane-dividing line while rounding a curve and stopped the car for a marked‑lane violation.
- Officer Bell detected the odor of raw marijuana at the stopped vehicle; when the passenger (Alexander) opened her purse, Bell saw a baggie of suspected marijuana.
- A search of the car revealed a loaded, previously‑stolen handgun under the driver’s seat, large amounts of cash, sandwich bag containers, jewelry and collectible coins.
- A detective obtained a warrant to search the Knights Inn room Starks had rented; the search produced a large quantity of methamphetamine.
- Starks’ pretrial motions to suppress (vehicle and motel room) and his request for a Franks hearing were denied; days later he pleaded no contest pursuant to a four‑year agreed sentence and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop and subsequent vehicle search | Stop lawful based on observed lane departure; odor of marijuana and visible baggie provided probable cause to search vehicle | Single lane departure was de minimis and insufficient to justify stop; evidence should be suppressed | Stop lawful under State v. Mays; smell of marijuana and observation of marijuana in passenger’s purse gave probable cause to search — suppression denied |
| Franks hearing and suppression of motel room search | Affidavit set out vehicle evidence and indicia of drug trafficking providing nexus to room | Affidavit omitted Alexander’s statement that jewelry/coins and other items in car belonged to her; omission was material and made recklessly — Franks hearing required; warrant lacking probable cause | No Franks hearing required: officers need not accept Alexander’s claim at face value; omission not shown to be made to mislead and was not critical to probable cause; suppression denied |
| Motion for continuance after new counsel retained | Court had discretion; one‑week continuance insufficient given new counsel’s need to prepare, causing prejudice and coerced plea | New counsel obtained a one‑week continuance and then represented Starks chose to plead; no demonstrated prejudice from denial of a longer continuance | No reversible error: record shows retained counsel used the continuance to negotiate a plea and Starks voiced desire to plead; no causal link between continuance denial and plea |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (suppression/Franks arguments) | Counsel failed to press stronger arguments on vehicle search and the lacking nexus for the motel warrant | Counsel adequately litigated suppression and Franks; facts supported probable cause and lawful search | No ineffective assistance: suppression rulings were legally sound and counsel’s performance did not prejudice the defense |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes when a defendant is entitled to a hearing to challenge intentional or reckless falsities/omissions in a warrant affidavit)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 894 N.E.2d 1204 (2008) (observed lane departure can justify a traffic stop under Ohio law)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 734 N.E.2d 804 (2000) (recognizes that a trained officer’s detection of the odor of marijuana alone can establish probable cause to search a vehicle)