State v. Wilson
2013 Ohio 4799
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Wilson was indicted for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer (RC 2921.331) after a Whitehall officer, Slosser, arrested him in Columbus while outside his territorial jurisdiction.
- Slosser was outside his statutory jurisdiction when he observed Wilson’s conduct that led to the stop and arrest in Columbus, Ohio.
- Wilson moved to dismiss the indictment or suppress evidence, arguing R.C. 2935.03 extraterritorial arrest violation barred admissible evidence.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss based on exclusionary-rule-oriented reasoning for the statutory violation.
- The state appealed, asserting de novo review and that the exclusionary rule does not apply to R.C. 2935.03 violations; the issue was whether there was probable cause for the stop.
- The court of appeals remanded to determine probable cause, sustaining the state's assignment of error and reversing the trial court’s dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 2935.03 violation trigger the exclusionary rule? | State argues no exclusionary remedy for statutory violation. | Wilson argues the Weideman balancing approach applies and supports suppression. | No automatic exclusion; remand to assess probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Weideman, 94 Ohio St.3d 501 (2002) (statutory violations not per se unreasonable; balancing test may apply)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (probable cause allows arrest without suppression for constitutional grounds)
- State v. Jones, 121 Ohio St.3d 103 (2009) (Moore precludes suppressing evidence for statutory violations; probable cause governs)
- State v. Saxon, 2009-Ohio-6905 (2009) (de novo review on pretrial dismissal; applicable to statutory-stop issues)