2016 Ohio 5017
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Larry Stevens was stopped on I-77 for excessive window tint; trooper Bayless (a K-9 handler) initiated the stop and trooper Roe assisted with a tint meter.
- During the stop officers noticed Stevens was unusually nervous (shaking, hand-wringing, rearranging items) and detected a strong air freshener; Roe reported a slight odor of marijuana beneath the air freshener.
- Dispatch informed Bayless that Stevens had a prior drug conviction; Bayless decided to conduct a K-9 sniff about seven minutes after the stop began and before issuing any citation or warning.
- Officers removed Stevens, performed a pat-down with his consent, read Miranda, and Stevens admitted there was marijuana in the vehicle; officers then searched and found marijuana in the trunk.
- Stevens moved to suppress arguing the stop was unlawfully prolonged for a drug investigation; the trial court denied the motion, he pled no contest, was convicted, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged by deploying a K-9 or expanding into a drug investigation | State: stop and subsequent expansion were lawful because officers acted diligently, deployed canine during time necessary to effectuate stop, and had reasonable suspicion to expand | Stevens: troopers completed tasks related to the tint violation and then impermissibly prolonged the stop to investigate drugs without reasonable suspicion | Court: Affirmed — the stop had not been completed when canine deployment was decided; alternatively, reasonable suspicion existed to prolong the stop based on totality of circumstances |
| Whether a canine sniff during a lawful detention requires independent reasonable suspicion | State: canine exterior sniff is not a search and may occur during the time necessary to effectuate the stop | Stevens: canine deployment converted the stop into a drug investigation and prolonged detention without suspicion | Court: A canine sniff may occur during the mission of the stop; even if mission were complete, reasonable suspicion existed to justify prolongation |
| Whether defendant’s statements after Miranda were admissible and supported probable cause for a search | State: statements were made during a lawful detention and after Miranda warnings, giving probable cause | Stevens: challenged the validity of the detention that led to the statements | Court: Statements admissible; they provided probable cause to search and recover marijuana |
| Relevance of factors (nervousness, prior conviction, air freshener, tint) to reasonable suspicion | State: these factors, taken together, justify reasonable suspicion to expand investigation | Stevens: each factor alone is innocuous and insufficient | Court: Under totality of circumstances these combined factors supported reasonable suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (officer’s subjective motive does not invalidate a traffic stop)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (a lawful traffic stop may include a dog sniff that does not prolong the stop)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (dog sniff of luggage is not a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (officers may not prolong a completed traffic stop, absent reasonable suspicion, to conduct a dog sniff)
- Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (an officer may stop a vehicle for a de minimis traffic violation)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (continued detention beyond the mission of the stop requires articulable facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 (air freshener and tinted windows are factors relevant to reasonable suspicion)