2023 Ohio 889
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- March 27, 2021: a dark sedan crossed the center line on SR‑751, causing life‑threatening injuries to victims; the sedan fled.
- Paint/debris matched a 2016–2018 black Nissan Altima registered to Melannis Stevens.
- Detective Andrews flew a DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise drone (300–396 ft) from a location adjacent to Stevens’ property and photographed a dismantled black Altima ~280 ft from the house in a wooded area.
- Drone images were used to obtain a search warrant; Stevens was indicted on two counts of failure to stop (elevated to felonies for alleged serious physical harm), two counts vehicular assault, and one count tampering with evidence.
- Stevens moved to suppress the drone evidence and later pleaded no contest to all counts while waiving further presentation of evidence; trial court denied suppression and sentenced her to an aggregate 84 months.
- Appeal raised (1) sufficiency of factual recital to support felony elevation and (2) constitutionality of the warrantless drone search (and alleged lack of pilot licensing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could accept no contest pleas to felony failure‑to‑stop where the indictment alleged "serious physical harm" but the State did not proffer detailed facts | Stevens waived further presentation of evidence; a no contest plea admits truth of indictment and waiver permits conviction | Court erred by accepting plea without a State proffer to establish the elevated element of "serious physical harm" | Overruled — waiver of further evidence by defense meant no error; plea + waiver sufficed to sustain convictions. |
| Whether the warrantless drone flyover and photographs violated the Fourth Amendment (and whether lack of pilot license made the search illegal) | Drone surveillance was lawful: vehicle was in an open field (not curtilage); drone operated in public navigable airspace in a non‑intrusive manner; licensing claim was not raised below and therefore waived | Drone use is more intrusive than traditional aerial surveillance and may require a warrant; pilot purportedly unlicensed | Overruled — vehicle was outside the curtilage (open‑fields doctrine) and aerial observation from Class G airspace with a consumer camera did not violate the Fourth Amendment; licensing challenge was forfeited on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Puterbaugh v. State, 142 Ohio App.3d 185 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (no contest plea requires an explanation sufficient to support all essential elements unless defendant waives presentation of evidence)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (two‑part test for expectation of privacy)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (limits on Fourth Amendment standing)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (open‑fields doctrine: no Fourth Amendment protection for open fields)
- Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924) (foundational open‑fields rule)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986) (aerial photographs from navigable airspace not a search)
- California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (warrantless aerial observation from 1,000 feet of fenced curtilage did not violate Fourth Amendment)
- Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) (helicopter surveillance at 400 feet within navigable airspace did not require a warrant)
- Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of technology to reveal details previously unknowable without physical intrusion can be a search)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (common‑law trespass theory and GPS tracking — physical trespass can implicate Fourth Amendment)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018) (curtilage is part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes)