State v. Thomas, 92 N.E.3d 93

Defendant Deontay Thomas was charged with having a weapon while under disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(3)) and carrying a concealed weapon (R.C. 2923.12(A)(2)); he pleaded no contest after the suppression ruling.
Anonymous 911 caller reported three juveniles (13–14) in a CMHA-area parking lot with bricks; one juvenile was described as wearing a black jacket.
Officer Aaron Luther responded ~40 minutes after the call, saw Thomas (an adult wearing a dark jacket) near a different convenience‑store lot, and approached alone.
Officer Luther asked to speak with Thomas; Thomas approached, removed his hands from his jacket at the officer’s request, and answered questions.
During the consensual encounter, the officer asked to pat Thomas down for safety; Thomas immediately admitted he had a small-caliber pistol. A pat‑down recovered a loaded .22 revolver and marijuana.
Trial court denied the motion to suppress; majority on appeal held the contact was a consensual encounter and admission/search were voluntary; a judge dissented, arguing the contact was a seizure unsupported by reasonable suspicion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thomas)	Held
Whether the contact was a seizure or a consensual encounter	Officer’s approach and brief questions were consensual; no coercive tactics used	The stop/search violated Fourth Amendment because Thomas was not free to leave and did not consent	Held consensual encounter — no seizure (consent to speak and remove hands was voluntary)
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop	Not necessary if encounter was consensual; officer observed matching description (male in dark jacket)	Description was vague, delayed response, Thomas did not match juveniles, so no reasonable suspicion	Court found no reasonable suspicion for Terry stop but ruled there was no seizure because encounter was consensual
Whether pat‑down request converted encounter into compelled search	Officer asked for pat‑down for safety; Thomas volunteered presence of a gun before pat‑down	Thomas contends any pat‑down lacked consent and was product of unlawful stop	Held pat‑down request did not render the encounter nonconsensual; Thomas voluntarily disclosed the gun, so suppression not warranted
Whether evidence (gun) must be suppressed	Evidence was voluntarily disclosed during consensual encounter and lawfully seized in a search incident to officer safety	Evidence obtained from an unlawful seizure must be excluded	Held suppression not required; admission and subsequent seizure admissible

Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of appellate review for motions to suppress — trial court findings of fact entitled to deference)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (warrantless searches/seizures are presumptively unreasonable)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (framework for investigative stops and pat‑downs)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (factors for distinguishing consensual encounter from seizure)
Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (exclusionary rule bars evidence from unlawful searches/seizures)
United States v. Flowers, 909 F.2d 145 (6th Cir. 1990) (mere approach and questions in public do not necessarily constitute a seizure)
State v. Stewart, 193 Ohio App.3d 716 (2011) (insufficiently specific suspect description may not support reasonable‑suspicion stop)