State v. Ward
89 N.E.3d 124
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Officer Current (uniform, marked cruiser) stopped Brian Ward walking late at night; initial contact at cruiser window was consensual and yielded no warrants.
- After driving off and running Ward’s info, Current parked; Ward walked past and Current exited the cruiser and asked to "check" Ward for contraband; Ward consented.
- During a patdown Current saw/felt box-cutters clipped to Ward’s front pockets; Ward initially refused removal but then allowed Current to remove them for officer safety while Current held Ward’s arm.
- During the patdown Current felt gel capsules in Ward’s right front pocket and announced he believed they were heroin; Ward pulled away and ran, discarding three gel capsules into a creek; officers recovered the capsules.
- Ward was charged with possession of heroin and tampering with evidence; he moved to suppress alleging an unlawful seizure and involuntary consent; trial court denied suppression and Ward pled no contest and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second interaction (after officer parked and reapproached) was an unlawful seizure | Ward: the second encounter was a de facto detention requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion; officer lacked such suspicion | State (and trial court): both initial and second encounters were consensual; no Fourth Amendment seizure | Court: encounters were consensual; no show of force or orders that would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave |
| Whether Ward’s consent to the search was voluntary | Ward: consent was coerced by successive engagement and officer authority; even if initial consent valid, he revoked it when refusing removal of box-cutters | State: consent was voluntary and not obtained by force or threat; Ward later allowed removal of box-cutters | Court: consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; no coercive procedures and Ward was not in custody |
| Whether officer’s removal of box-cutters and continued search was lawful as a protective search | Ward: removal/continued search exceeded consent and followed a seizure (physical restraint) without suspicion; box-cutters are not inherently weapons | State: officer reasonably sought to remove potential weapons for safety and could continue search when he reasonably suspected danger | Court: even if seizure arguable at that moment, discovery of box-cutters gave reasonable, articulable suspicion of danger and justified the protective search |
| Admissibility of heroin capsules (abandonment) | Ward: capsules were discarded in response to illegal seizure/search so abandonment was not voluntary (fruit of illegal conduct) | State: capsules were abandoned voluntarily after lawful search/encounter | Court: need not decide abandonment because searches/encounters were lawful; evidence admissible under the court’s holdings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (consensual encounter/seizure test: would a reasonable person feel free to leave)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (consent-based encounters: totality of circumstances, free to decline test)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (officer may perform limited protective search given reasonable, articulable suspicion of danger)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (totality-of-circumstances approach to consent after detention)
- State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (Ohio Supreme Court on detention/consent framework)
- United States v. Richardson, 385 F.3d 625 (6th Cir.) (holding continued detention after purpose completed required reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (protective search for weapons during investigative stop justified by reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (standard for appellate review of suppression factual findings)