2019 Ohio 2944
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- At ~midnight in a neighborhood known for high drug activity, Officer Jonathan Rudy observed Charles Stocks change direction into an alley and walk quickly when Rudy’s marked cruiser became visible.
- Rudy turned around, intercepted Stocks a short time later as Stocks walked past the passenger side of the cruiser, and Stocks placed his hand into a pocket when the cruiser was visible.
- Rudy exited the cruiser, told Stocks to take his hands out of his pockets (the court treated this as a Terry investigatory stop), and asked for consent to search; the trial court found Stocks nodded consent.
- Rudy searched Stocks and found carfentanil; Stocks was later indicted for aggravated possession and moved to suppress.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion, concluding Rudy had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Stocks and that Stocks consented to the search.
- The appellate majority reversed: viewing the totality of circumstances, Stocks’s directional change and rapid walking in a high-crime neighborhood were insufficient to create reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, so the stop was unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stocks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to justify a Terry stop | Rudy’s observations (late hour, high drug area, abrupt change of direction, rapid walking, hand into pocket) created reasonable suspicion of criminal activity | Officer only had a hunch from Stocks’s change of direction/speed; no observed crime or connection to a particular drug house, so no reasonable suspicion | Reversed trial court: stop lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion and was unlawful |
| Whether Stocks consented to the search | Stocks nodded and voluntarily consented to pocket search | Any alleged consent was ambiguous/involuntary given the investigatory stop and officer’s touch; consent irrelevant if stop unlawful | Not reached on merits—search suppression follows because initial stop was unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (establishes stop-and-frisk/reasonable suspicion standard)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (Sup. Ct.) (evasive flight in high-crime area is a relevant factor for reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (Sup. Ct.) (totality-of-circumstances approach to reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (discusses Terry standard under Ohio law)
- State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (Ohio) (high-crime-area and evasive conduct are relevant in reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- State v. Batchili, 113 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio) (reasonable suspicion must be assessed from cumulative facts)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio) (courts view totality through eyes of reasonable officer)