State v. Wintermeyer
2017 Ohio 5521
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On March 8, 2014, Officer Wise responded to a report of a vacant house with an open window; while in the backyard he observed two men in the alley behind the house.
- Wintermeyer (defendant) went into a house for ~1–2 minutes, returned to the alley, and handed a small object to a companion (Carlson).
- Officer Wise approached, shone a flashlight, saw a small plastic bag in Carlson’s hand, grabbed the bag, observed a brown substance he suspected was heroin, and radioed for assistance.
- The bag tested positive for heroin; Wintermeyer was arrested and indicted for possession of heroin.
- Wintermeyer moved to suppress; the trial court granted the motion; the State appealed.
- The appellate majority affirmed suppression, concluding the encounter was an investigative detention unsupported by reasonable suspicion and that no exception (plain view/good faith/attenuation) justified admitting the seized evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer’s approach and seizure constituted a consensual encounter or an investigative detention | Officer contends approach and seizure were lawful and the officer lawfully observed contraband in plain view before seizing it | Defendant contends officer detained him prior to seizing the bag, making it an investigative stop | Court: Officer detained defendant prior to seizing the bag; encounter was an investigative detention |
| Whether officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the detention | State: short entry to a house, quick exit, and a hand-to-hand exchange gave rise to reasonable suspicion of a drug transaction | Defense: observations were insufficient—no flight, no furtive movements, no observed money exchange, and officer could not see the contents until after seizing the bag | Court: Totality of circumstances did not support reasonable suspicion; detention violated Fourth Amendment |
| Whether the plain‑view doctrine justified seizure of the bag without a warrant | State: officer lawfully illuminated and observed the bag; training/experience made its criminal nature immediately apparent | Defense: officer did not have probable cause before the seizure; the incriminating nature was not immediately apparent until after the bag was taken | Court: Plain‑view exception did not apply because the incriminating nature was not immediately apparent prior to seizure |
| Whether an exception (good‑faith or attenuation) permits admission despite the unlawful stop | State: argues exceptions like attenuation (citing Strieff) or good‑faith should allow admission | Defense: officer acted on his own inchoate suspicion; no intervening circumstances or objectively reasonable reliance justify exceptions | Court: Good‑faith inapplicable; attenuation fails (no intervening circumstance, close temporal proximity, and officer culpability); exclusionary rule applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes standard for investigative stops and requirement of reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (defines consensual encounters and when a person is free to leave)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (warrant requirement and exceptions framework)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment ‘‘reasonable expectation of privacy’’ principle)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applies to states)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (attenuation doctrine factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, flagrancy of misconduct)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016) (attenuation can apply where a valid, preexisting arrest warrant is a sufficient intervening circumstance)