2011 Ohio 763
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In June 2009, Trooper Lewis conducted a traffic stop of Williams with two other men in the vehicle.
- A canine unit alerted to drugs in the vehicle after arrival at the scene.
- Williams was detained and subjected to a pat-down; during the pat-down, a hard object was felt between his buttocks.
- Officers later discovered a baggie of white powder on Murphy and pills on Murphy after questioning him; Williams was transported to the station.
- At the station, Williams removed the object (a package of OxyContin) from between his buttocks, which was later found to be illegal drugs.
- Williams moved to suppress the evidence, arguing there was no probable cause for arrest after the pat-down; the trial court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pat-down was valid under Terry | Williams | Williams | Pat-down justified under Terry |
| Whether probable cause existed from the pat-down to arrest | Williams | Williams | Probable cause established via plain feel and surrounding circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permits brief investigative stop with reasonable suspicion)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain feel doctrine; immediate apparent contraband may be seized)
- State v. Hansard, 2008-Ohio-3349 (4th Dist. 2008) (plain feel in similar context; object immediately apparent as contraband)
- State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993) (frisk necessary for safety when dealing with suspected drug offenders)
- State v. Williams, 2004-Ohio-6337 (11th Dist. 2004) (probable cause considerations in similar contexts)
- State v. Burnside, 2003-Ohio-5372 (100 Ohio St.3d 152) (mixed questions of law and fact in suppression rulings)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (recognizes encounters and stops framework)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (identifies types of police-citizen interactions)