State v. Wyatt
2021 Ohio 3146
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On Aug. 16, 2019, WCDTF agents went to Franklin Municipal Court to arrest Kayla Nipper on drug-related charges; Charles Wyatt was the front-seat passenger.
- After Nipper was arrested, officers observed Wyatt appear "shocked" and manipulate his hands near his crotch; officers repeatedly ordered him to raise his hands.
- Trooper Roddy (female) performed a quick weapons pat-down of Wyatt but did not search the crotch area; male officers were present.
- Officer Aspacher (male) then read Wyatt Miranda warnings, recovered a Viagra pill from Wyatt’s front right pocket, and performed a second pat-down; he felt plastic crinkling and seized methamphetamine and a counterfeit $50 bill.
- Wyatt moved to suppress the evidence, arguing lack of reasonable articulable suspicion for the stop, lack of reasonable suspicion that he was armed, and that the second pat-down exceeded a permissible weapons frisk. The trial court denied suppression.
- Wyatt pleaded no contest, was sentenced to 30 months, and appealed solely challenging the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Wyatt's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain Wyatt after Nipper’s arrest | No; proximity to arrestee alone insufficient and Wyatt’s conduct did not supply lawful suspicion | Yes; Wyatt’s startled expression and manipulating his crotch after a drug arrest provided specific facts to suspect concealment/weapons | Court: Detention lawful — totality supported reasonable suspicion to conduct Terry stop |
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a second pat-down (male officer after female quick frisk) | No; initial frisk by Trooper Roddy should have ended the weapons search | Yes; first frisk was cursory and omitted crotch area because of opposite sex; male officer reasonably concerned about safety and adequacy | Court: Second pat-down reasonable given concern about adequacy and officer safety |
| Whether the second pat-down exceeded Terry (search for weapons only) and whether seizure of items violated plain-feel rule | No; officer manipulated and searched for evidence beyond weapons; seizure improper | Yes; officer only ran flat hand over bulge, heard crinkling, and immediately recognized contraband by touch and circumstances | Court: Seizure valid under plain-feel — identity of contraband was immediately apparent without manipulation |
| Whether handcuffing and Miranda warnings converted the encounter into an arrest requiring probable cause | Yes; handcuffs and Miranda indicate custodial arrest, so subsequent search required probable cause | No; temporary restraints for officer safety do not automatically convert a Terry stop into arrest; Miranda does not alone convert it | Court: Handcuffing and warnings did not convert the stop into an arrest; Terry standards apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may briefly detain on reasonable suspicion and frisk for weapons)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (plain-feel doctrine: contraband may be seized if its identity is immediately apparent during lawful frisk)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) (mere proximity to suspect does not justify search of third party)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable suspicion assessed by totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (officers may rely on training and experience in drawing inferences for reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993) (pat-downs limited to weapons; purpose is officer safety)
- State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86 (1991) (protective searches permit reasonable precautions for officer safety)
- State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177 (1988) (reasonable articulable suspicion requires specific and articulable facts)