State v. Swift
2016 Ohio 8191
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On June 18, 2015, Dayton officers in uniform in a marked cruiser turned around, pulled alongside Jerod Swift riding a bicycle in the travel lane, and asked to talk; no lights or sirens were used.
- Officer Williams exited the cruiser, cautioned Swift about riding toward the center of the street, and asked to pat him down; Williams testified Swift consented, Swift denied consenting.
- During the pat-down Williams said Swift admitted to having marijuana; Williams handcuffed Swift, located marijuana, and felt a hard object between Swift’s buttocks he suspected was crack/heroin.
- After the stop, Williams learned a caller identified as “Swift” had been linked to a prior drug arrest the night before.
- Swift was indicted for possession of cocaine; he moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop. The trial court granted suppression, finding the encounter was a seizure without reasonable suspicion. The State appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ act of turning around, pulling alongside, and asking Swift to stop amounted to a seizure (investigatory detention) | The contact was not a seizure because officers did not use lights/sirens or block Swift’s path (citing Chestnut) | A reasonable person would not feel free to ignore officers who u-turned, pulled alongside, and requested he stop | The court held the encounter was a seizure — a reasonable person in Swift’s position would not feel free to leave |
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the stop | The stop was justified by Swift riding near the center line (traffic violation) or by investigatory motive | Officers had no reported dispatch, saw no illegal conduct, and did not articulate a traffic-law basis at hearing | The court held officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion; suppression of evidence affirmed |
| Whether consent to pat-down was valid | Officer Williams testified Swift consented to a pat-down | Swift denied consenting and testified he was grabbed and not free to leave | Court credited trial court’s factual findings that a seizure occurred before any valid consent; pat-down and resulting evidence suppressed |
| Whether later-learned information (caller ID match) justified prior stop | State argued post-stop identification supports suspicion | Court noted information was learned after the stop and cannot retroactively justify it | Court held post-stop information did not validate the initial unlawful stop |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes standard for investigatory stops and frisks)
- Michigan v. Chestnut, 486 U.S. 567 (approach/following without lights or contact may not constitute seizure depending on facts)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (reasonable suspicion standard is less than probable cause)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (consensual encounter vs. seizure—test whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio: traffic violation can provide reasonable articulable suspicion for stop)
- State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (appellate review deference to trial court factfinding on suppression)