STATE OF OHIO v. DANIEL PENWELL
Appellate Case No. 2019-CA-74
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CLARK COUNTY
April 9, 2021
[Cite as State v. Penwell, 2021-Ohio-1216.]
TUCKER, P.J.
Trial Court Case No. 2018-CR-73; (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
Rendered on the 9th day of April, 2021.
IAN RICHARDSON, Atty. Reg. No. 0100124, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Prosecutor‘s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
CHARLES M. BLUE, Atty. Reg. No. 0074329, 401 East Stroop Road, Kettering, Ohio 45429 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
I. Facts and Procedural History
{2} On October 11, 2017, Penwell was admitted to Springfield Regional Medical Center to be treated for a possible overdose. Judgment Entry 1, Sept. 11, 2019. Officers Freeman and Sanders of the Springfield Police Division, who were already on the premises for an unrelated matter, were dispatched to speak with Penwell “in reference to his overdose.” Transcript of Proceedings on Motion to Suppress 4:24-5:6, Aug. 6, 2019 [hereinafter Transcript]. The officers were told that medical personnel had administered Narcan to Penwell and that he had responded favorably to the treatment. Id. at 5:7-5:21 and 11:18-12:4.
{3} When the officers approached him, Penwell lay on a bed in a corridor in the emergency department. Id. at 8:1-10:21; Judgment Entry 1. The officers spoke with him, and Officer Freeman asked him whether he had consumed any illicit drugs and requested permission to search his person. Transcript at 5:7-6:4. Penwell consented. Id. The officers did not deliver a Miranda warning because Penwell “wasn‘t under arrest” and gave his consent to the search. Id. at 6:10-7:10.
{4} In a pocket in Penwell‘s pants, Officer Freeman found two capsules, “one of which was empty and [the other of which] had a tan substance in it.” Id. at 6:5-6:9.
{5} On January 29, 2018, a Clark County grand jury issued an indictment against Penwell, charging him with one count of aggravated possession of a controlled substance in violation of
II. Analysis
{6} For his single assignment of error, Penwell contends that:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING THE APPELLANT‘S
{7} Penwell argues that the trial court erred for two reasons. First, Penwell maintains that his encounter with police officers on October 11, 2017, was not consensual under the circumstances. Appellant‘s Brief 11-15. Second, Penwell denies that he voluntarily consented to the search of his person. Id. at 15-17.
{8} Appellate “review of a [trial court‘s ruling on a] motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. As the trier of fact, a trial court “is in the best position to weigh * * * evidence * * * and evaluate [the credibility of] witness[es],” so an “appellate court must accept the trial court‘s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence.” Id., citing State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982); State v. Graves, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2015-03-022, 2015-Ohio-3936, ¶ 9, citing State v. Cruz, 12th Dist. Preble No. CA2013-10-008, 2014-Ohio-4280, ¶ 12. Accepting the trial court‘s findings of fact as true, “the appellate court must then independently determine, without deference to the [trial court‘s legal] conclusion[s],” whether the “facts satisfy the applicable * * * standard.” Burnside at ¶ 8, citing Fanning and State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 707 N.E.2d 539 (3d Dist.1997).
{9} The
{10} Interactions among police officers and citizens take one of three forms: consensual encounters, investigatory detentions, and arrests. See, e.g., State v. Millerton, 2015-Ohio-34, 26 N.E.3d 317, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.). An “encounter between a police officer and a member of the public is consensual if a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the officer‘s questions or [to] terminate the encounter and go about his * * * business.” City of Columbus v. Beasley, 2019-Ohio-719, 132 N.E.3d 1201, ¶ 41, citing Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991); see also Weisgarber at ¶ 16 (stating that a consensual encounter “occur[s] when [a] police [officer] merely approach[es] a person in a public place and engage[s] the person in conversation, [with] the person remain[ing] free * * * to [refuse to] answer and * * * walk away“). By contrast, a person is “subject to an investigatory detention when, in view of all the [attendant] circumstances * * *, a reasonable person” would believe “that he [is] not free to leave or is [otherwise] compelled to respond to questions.” State v. Lewis, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22726, 2009-Ohio-158, ¶ 22, citing U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544,
{11} Consensual encounters “are not seizures, and [they do not implicate] Fourth Amendment guarantees.” Weisgarber at ¶ 16, citing State v. Taylor, 106 Ohio App.3d 741, 747-749, 667 N.E.2d 60 (2d Dist.1995)State v. Westover, 2014-Ohio-1959, 10 N.E.3d 211, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.), quoting Bostick at 435, and citing Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 4-6, 105 S.Ct. 308, 83 L.Ed.2d 165 (1984), and Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984).
{12} The determination of whether an encounter is consensual should be focused on the conduct of the police officers involved, rather than the state of mind of the person with whom the officers interact. See, e.g., State v. Ramey, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26705, 2016-Ohio-607, ¶ 25. Among other things, “[f]actors that might indicate [that a person‘s interaction with police officers is an investigatory detention, as opposed to a consensual encounter,] include the threatening presence of several police officers, the display of a weapon, some physical touching of the person, the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer[s‘] request might be required, approaching the person in a nonpublic place, and blocking the [person]‘s path.” State v. Cosby, 177 Ohio App.3d 670, 2008-Ohio-3862, 895 N.E.2d 868, ¶ 13, citing Mendenhall at 554 and State v. Cook, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20427, 2004-Ohio-4793, ¶ 11.
{13} In the first part of his argument, Penwell posits that his encounter with police
{14} The room in Weisgarber was described as an ” ‘individual emergency room,’ ” which measured “approximately 12 [feet] by 12 [feet] or 15 [feet] by 15 feet.” Weisgarber at ¶ 5. Here, however, Penwell spoke with police officers in a corridor in the emergency department. Although the trial court erred by finding as a matter of fact that the corridor was “generally accessible to family and friends of patients and even [to] the public at large,” we conclude that the corridor was an intrinsically less confining location than the private room described in our Weisgarber opinion. Judgment Entry 4; Transcript at 9:1-9:19.
{15} Furthermore, we noted in Weisgarber that the record included “no evidence that the officer introduced himself [to the defendant], [no evidence that the officer] asked [the defendant] if he [would be] willing to answer questions, [and no evidence that the officer] engaged in any [other] conversation [before] asking [the defendant] whether [he] had drugs or weapons” on his person. Weisgarber at ¶ 21. On that record, we “defer[red] to the trial court‘s implicit factual finding that,” evaluated in light of “the location of the encounter,” the officer‘s “use of language and [the officer‘s] demeanor” constituted “a display of authority * * * indicat[ing] to [the defendant] that * * * response[s] [to the
{16} In the instant case, however, the record includes some evidence—albeit ambiguous evidence—that Officers Freeman and Sanders engaged in superficial conversation with Penwell before seeking his consent to a search of his person. Officer Freeman testified, during the hearing on the motion to suppress, that when she and Officer Sanders approached Penwell, “[they] spoke with him,” and “[she] asked him what he had used.”3 See Transcript at 4:24-5:17. On cross-examination, Penwell‘s counsel asked Officer Freeman to recall “the very first thing [she] said” to Penwell after approaching him, but she answered that she “couldn‘t tell [counsel] verbatim” what she had said. Id. at 13:15-13:20. Although Officer Freeman‘s testimony was thus ambiguous, it suggested that she and Officer Sanders at least briefly conversed with Penwell before questioning him in earnest.
{17} Compared, then, to the encounter at issue in Weisgarber, Penwell‘s encounter with police officers occurred in a relatively less confined setting, and the officers’ language and demeanor did not obviously constitute a display of authority. Of the factors we listed in Cook, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20427, 2004-Ohio-4793, the only factor that would unequivocally support a finding that Penwell‘s encounter was an investigatory detention was the presence of two police officers, rather than one officer, but the record comprises no evidence that either Officer Freeman or Officer Sanders brandished a weapon, touched Penwell, or used language or spoke in a tone of voice implying that Penwell was required to respond to their questions. Cook at ¶ 11.
{18} In the second part of his argument, Penwell denies that he consented to the search of his person. Appellant‘s Brief 15-17. Specifically, he maintains that he did not voluntarily consent because he was subjected to an investigatory detention, “had recently suffered unconsciousness,” and had been treated with Narcan, which “call[s] [his lucidity at the time] into question.” See id. at 16.
{19} Consent to a search “is an exception to the warrant requirement that requires the State to ‘show by “clear and positive” evidence that the consent was “freely and voluntarily” given.’ ” State v. Ojezua, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26787, 2016-Ohio-2659, ¶ 17, quoting State v. Posey, 40 Ohio St.3d 420, 427, 534 N.E.2d 61 (1988). The standard of “clear and positive” evidence is essentially equivalent to the standard of “clear and convincing evidence.” See id. at ¶ 18. Whether a person‘s consent to a search is truly voluntary must be determined in light of the circumstances. Weisgarber, 2017-Ohio-8764, 88 N.E.3d 1037, at ¶¶ 17-19; Westover, 2014-Ohio-1959, 10 N.E.3d 211, at ¶ 13. Generally, this determination entails the consideration of six factors: “1) ‘whether the defendant‘s custodial status was voluntary; 2) whether coercive police procedures were used; 3) the extent and level of the defendant‘s cooperation; 4) the defendant‘s awareness of his * * * right to refuse consent; 5) the defendant‘s education and intelligence; [and] 6) the defendant‘s belief that no incriminating evidence would be found.’ ” State v. Black, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23524, 2010-Ohio-2916, ¶¶ 35-41,
{20} We have held that Penwell‘s interaction with Officers Freeman and Sanders was a consensual encounter. Consequently, for purposes of determining whether Penwell consented voluntarily to a search, we find that he was not in custody when the officers requested his consent, and that the officers did not employ coercive police procedures to convince him to consent. Officer Freeman‘s testimony provided no indication that Penwell was anything less than cooperative during the encounter, notwithstanding his initial denial that he had consumed any illegal drugs. See Transcript at 13:21-14:1. Neither the State nor Penwell‘s counsel asked the officer whether she or Officer Sanders informed Penwell that he had the right to refuse to consent, and the record is silent on Penwell‘s level of education. The warrant for his arrest, however, indicated that Penwell was 27 years old on October 11, 2017.4 In his own testimony at the hearing on his motion to suppress, Penwell had no apparent difficulty understanding questions, and he was able to answer clearly and appropriately. See Transcript 24:18-25:19. Because Penwell disclaimed any memory of speaking with Officers Freeman and Sanders at the hospital, the record is inconclusive on the question of whether he believed that the officers would not find anything incriminating on his person. Id. at 23:17-25:23.
{21} Taking the record as a whole, we find that consideration of the six factors listed in our opinion in Black favors the trial court‘s determination that Penwell voluntarily consented to the search of his person. Compare with State v. Ivkovich, 2018-Ohio-609, 106 N.E.3d 305, ¶¶ 2-3 and 21-27 (2d Dist). Regarding Penwell‘s lucidity, Officer
{22} Penwell testified that he could not remember being treated by medical personnel or speaking with Officers Freeman and Sanders. Id. at 24:14-26:6. By his account, he remembered only “[b]eing at the library” and then, “at some point,” seeing his “grandparents * * * at the hospital.” Id. Even if Penwell recalled nothing more than he indicated in his testimony, his inability to recall speaking with the officers would not necessarily have precluded the possibility that, when Officer Freeman asked for his consent, he was sufficiently lucid to understand the question. Regardless, the trial court did not find his testimony to be credible, and as the trier of fact, the trial court was in the best position to weigh the evidence and to evaluate Penwell‘s credibility. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, at ¶ 8. Given that we must accept the trial court‘s findings of fact for purposes of Penwell‘s appeal, we hold that the trial court did not err in determining that Penwell voluntarily consented to a search of his person.5
{23} We note, finally, that even if Penwell‘s encounter with Officers Freeman and Sanders were an investigatory detention, the officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion means that a police officer “must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [a limited] intrusion” on a person‘s “constitutionally protected interests.” See Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. The term “reasonable suspicion” refers to “something more than an inchoate and unparticularized * * * ‘hunch,’ but [to] something less than the level of suspicion for probable cause“; a demonstration of probable cause, by comparison, generally requires a likelihood “or substantial chance of criminal activity.” Village of Chagrin Falls v. Calabrese, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 101197, 2014-Ohio-5340, ¶ 14, citing Terry at 21. To determine whether a police officer had reasonable suspicion, “we evaluate the ‘totality of the circumstances’ ” from the perspective of a hypothetical “reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88, 565 N.E.2d 1271 (1991); State v. Heard, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19323, 2003-Ohio-1047, ¶ 14.
{24} Here, Officers Freeman and Sanders approached Penwell after being advised that he had been admitted to the emergency department at the Springfield Regional Medical Center for an opiate overdose, that he had received several doses of Narcan, and that he had responded favorably to such treatment. See Transcript 4:16-5:21 and 11:18-12:4. Officer Freeman testified further that Narcan is effective only for treating opiate overdoses, and her testimony implied that her interaction with Penwell was
{25} Moreover, this court and others in the state have acknowledged what has been called the “opioid crisis” or the “opioid epidemic.” See, e.g., State v. Miller, 2019-Ohio-3294, 141 N.E.3d 604, ¶ 37 (2d Dist.); Acuity v. Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190176, 2020-Ohio-3440, ¶ 2; State v. Davis, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105129, 2017-Ohio-8479, ¶ 16. Irrespective of the fact that Penwell theoretically could have taken a legitimately prescribed opiate and overdosed accidentally, the information at Officer Freeman‘s disposal, in the context of the widely publicized opioid crisis, supported more than a mere, inchoate hunch that Penwell‘s overdose might have been the result of his consumption of an illicitly obtained opiate. See Terry at 21; Calabrese at ¶ 14. Penwell‘s assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{26} We hold that the trial court did not err by overruling Penwell‘s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his encounter with two police officers at the Springfield Regional Medical Center and the concomitant search of his person. The police officers’ interaction with Penwell was a consensual encounter, and regardless of the fact that the search occurred while Penwell lay on a bed in a corridor in the hospital‘s emergency department, his consent to the search was voluntary under the circumstances. Penwell‘s conviction is therefore affirmed.
DONOVAN, J., dissents:
{27} The “opioid epidemic” does not suspend the
{28} Furthermore, a sleepy and intoxicated patient, such as Penwell, who had been administered multiple doses of Narcan, cannot be said to have voluntarily consented to a search under the totality of the circumstances. I would reverse.
Copies sent to:
Ian Richardson
Charles M. Blue
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter