State v. Stewart
193 Ohio App. 3d 716
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant Kevin Stewart was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon after a no-contest plea following denial of his suppression motion.
- A shooting occurred at about 1:30 a.m. in a residential neighborhood; witnesses and later officers described a shooter and two suspects.
- Two officers, acting on a description of a male and female suspects, observed Stewart and a female in a parking lot about five minutes after the shooting and frisked Stewart.
- Stewart was found to have a .44 Magnum in his waistband; he and his girlfriend testified they were not the shooters and that Stewart was not wearing braids and did not have facial tattoos.
- The trial court found reasonable suspicion based on the description and proximity to the shooting, supporting the stop, while the defense contested the description’s specificity and the stop’s validity.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding the stop unsupported by reasonable suspicion and the suppression motion should have been granted; the case was remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the investigatory stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Stewart argues the description was too vague to justify a stop. | State argues collective-knowledge and proximity to the shooting justified the stop. | No; stop invalid due to vague description and lack of particularized suspicion. |
| Does collective knowledge validate reliance on information from other officers? | Stewart contends reliance on dispatch alone is insufficient when description is vague. | State asserts collective knowledge allows acts on information from other officers. | Yes, but description still insufficient to justify stop in this case. |
| Did clothing and other details corroborate the description to narrow suspects? | Stewart’s clothing discrepancy undermines description reliability. | State maintains description sufficiency given circumstances near the shooting. | Description not sufficiently specific; general matching individuals does not justify stop. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (collective-knowledge doctrine governs reliance on other officers' information)
- United States v. Drake, 456 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2006) (recent shooting nearby may justify cautious frisk under certain facts)
- State v. Kessler, 53 Ohio St.2d 204 (Ohio 1978) (furtive conduct alone insufficient without reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Goodrich, 450 F.3d 552 (3d Cir. 2006) (description specificity and surrounding factors affect reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Robinson, 536 F.2d 1299 (9th Cir. 1976) (officers need not cross-examine for information learned from other officers)