2018 Ohio 758
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On July 12, 2016, Columbus police officers observed Titus Thomas walking with a firearm magazine visible on his left hip and later perceived the outline of a handgun on his right hip as he approached 1436 Hildreth Ave.
- Officers asked whether Thomas had a permit; Thomas denied having a gun and went into the house where he had been invited for a party.
- Officers exited their cruiser with weapons drawn, kicked open the front door, entered, deployed a Taser, and arrested Thomas; a handgun and magazine were recovered.
- Thomas was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon and having a weapon while under a disability; he moved to suppress the handgun as the fruit of an unlawful seizure and warrantless entry.
- The trial court granted the suppression, finding no reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, no probable cause or exigent circumstances to enter the home, and that exclusion was required.
- The State appealed, advancing four assignments of error: (1) there was probable cause/reasonable suspicion; (2) entry into the residence was lawful; (3) the good-faith exception applies; (4) Lindway’s non-exclusionary rule applies under Ohio law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to seize Thomas (Terry stop) | Visible magazine and firearm outline plus his conduct provided reasonable suspicion to detain | Mere possession of a firearm/ammunition and a brief walk into an invited residence is lawful and did not create reasonable suspicion | No reasonable suspicion; officers’ conduct amounted to a seizure unjustified under Terry |
| Whether warrantless entry into the home was lawful (probable cause/exigent circumstances/hot pursuit) | Hot pursuit, danger from the firearm, or imminent destruction of evidence justified entry without a warrant | No probable cause or exigent circumstances; Thomas was invited in, and entry was unnecessary and unconstitutional | No probable cause or exigent circumstances; warrantless entry into the home was unconstitutional |
| Whether the exclusionary rule should be avoided by the good-faith exception | Officers acted reasonably and in good faith such that suppression should not apply | Entry was warrantless, without probable cause, and objectively unreasonable; good-faith exception inapplicable | Good-faith exception does not apply to warrantless entry/search by officers relying on their own judgment here |
| Whether Ohio’s Lindway non-exclusionary rule prevents suppression under the Ohio Constitution | Lindway preserves a non-exclusionary rule under Ohio law | Lindway has been effectively overruled by Mapp and later Ohio decisions; exclusion applies | Lindway’s rule has been superseded; exclusion applies and suppression was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applies to states)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may stop for investigative detention only with reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless entry into a home to effect an arrest presumptively unreasonable absent exigent circumstances)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for reasonable reliance on a defective warrant)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule applies only where it will appreciably deter police misconduct)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (review of reasonable suspicion/probable cause is de novo on appeal)