2020 Ohio 2865
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On October 25, 2018, Officer Kaleb Torbet stopped Brooke Werder for a license-plate light violation, ran the plate through Red Hawk, and asked for ID and registration; Werder said he had insurance but had no card.
- Torbet called off-duty K-9 officer Dawn Huner and completed a written warning; bodycam video shows he finished the warning in under three minutes, then sat in his cruiser for about four minutes in the dark waiting for Huner.
- Huner arrived, her dog alerted to drugs, and a small packet of methamphetamine fell from Werder; Werder was charged with aggravated possession and tampering with evidence.
- Werder moved to suppress, arguing the stop was unlawfully prolonged to await the dog; the trial court denied suppression, Werder pled no contest, and was sentenced to community control.
- On appeal the Sixth District reversed the denial of the suppression motion: the court found the video showed Torbet had completed traffic-related tasks before waiting for the K-9 and that the State failed to raise a reasonable-suspicion justification in the trial court; remaining assignments of error were held moot and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Werder) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the traffic stop unlawfully prolonged by waiting for a K-9? | Officer followed normal procedures and the K-9 arrived within the timeframe to complete a traffic stop; alternatively, reasonable suspicion arose. | Officer completed the warning, then sat waiting nearly four minutes for the K-9, unlawfully extending the stop. | Stop was unlawfully prolonged under Rodriguez; suppression should have been granted. |
| 2. Did reasonable, articulable suspicion arise during the stop to justify waiting for the K-9? | (Argued on appeal) Facts supported reasonable suspicion to detain. | No reasonable suspicion: no odor, no impairment, scanner off; only prior allegations of drug use. | State waived the argument by not raising it in the trial court; appellate court declined to consider it. |
| 3. Was there sufficient evidence to support the tampering-with-evidence conviction? | Evidence supported tampering. | Insufficient facts/evidence to establish tampering. | Moot: rendered by reversal of suppression ruling. |
| 4. Did the trial court comply with Crim.R. 11 during the plea (and/or was plain error present)? | Plea was valid; no reversible error. | Trial court failed to establish factual basis; plea invalid. | Moot: rendered by reversal of suppression ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (holding a traffic stop may not be prolonged beyond its mission to conduct a dog sniff absent reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (a canine sniff during a lawful traffic stop is not a search under the Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio 2003) (appellate review of suppression rulings: trial court factual findings reviewed for support; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- State v. Green, 69 N.E.3d 59 (Ohio App. 2016) (appellate court applying Rodriguez reversed where dog sniff extended traffic stop beyond mission)
- State v. Hall, 90 N.E.3d 276 (Ohio App. 2017) (delay to await canine when officer stalled was an unreasonable extension under Rodriguez)
- State v. Brown, 916 N.E.2d 1138 (Ohio App. 2009) (officer may detain for time necessary to run license/registration/plate checks during a traffic stop)