2016 Ohio 3002
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On July 17, 2014, deputies responded to a hit-and-run; appellant Garry Thurman had left the scene after giving his name and saying he would pay for damage but lacked insurance.
- Deputy Snyder located Thurman at/near his residence, observed damage to Thurman’s vehicle consistent with the hit-and-run, and crossed the street to speak to him on a porch step.
- Snyder smelled alcohol and observed Thurman intoxicated; during the encounter Thurman yelled profanities, used a racial slur directed at the deputy, and refused to answer about the accident. Teenagers present were taken inside by a bystander.
- Deputy Snyder arrested Thurman for aggravated disorderly conduct; a search incident to arrest produced a keychain with a pill container containing prescription medication. Thurman was later indicted for two counts of possession of a controlled substance.
- Thurman filed a motion to suppress; the trial court denied it. After conviction, Thurman appealed solely arguing the arrest lacked probable cause for aggravated disorderly conduct. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding no probable cause for that arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Snyder had probable cause to arrest Thurman for aggravated disorderly conduct (fighting words/persistent disorderly conduct) | Thurman’s loud profanities and racial slur directed at the officer amounted to offensively coarse "fighting words" and, after warning, continued conduct supporting arrest | Words, though offensive, did not constitute "fighting words" likely to incite immediate breach of the peace; officer was not provoked to violence and bystanders were removed before escalation | Reversed — no probable cause for aggravated disorderly conduct; words did not meet fighting-words standard under circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hoffman, 57 Ohio St.2d 129 (Ohio 1979) (speech is punishable under disorderly conduct only if words are likely by their utterance to inflict injury or provoke immediate breach of the peace)
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (U.S. 1942) (fighting-words doctrine: certain utterances are not protected because they tend to incite immediate breach of the peace)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause and reasonable suspicion determinations reviewed de novo on appeal)
- State v. Wood, 112 Ohio App.3d 621 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (distinguishing protected vulgar commentary from fighting words directed at officers)