OH2: Inconsistency between video and officer’s testimony didn’t alter fact heroin was in plain view

There was an inconsistency between the video and the testimony of the stop and defendant’s handcuffing and the officer’s seeing heroin in plain view, but it’s not material. The officer could order defendant out of the vehicle on a stop. The officer testified he ordered defendant out, was going to pat him down for weapons, but saw the heroin in plain view, and then handcuffed him. The video showed the handcuffing before seeing the heroin. On the totality, the difference doesn’t matter to the outcome because, handcuffed or not, the heroin was in plain view. State v. Wynn, 2014-Ohio-5809, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 5635 (2d Dist. December 31, 2014):

The inconsistency between the video and Phillips’s testimony is immaterial because the heroin was not discovered as a result of Wynn being handcuffed. Rather, the heroin was discovered as a result of Phillips stopping Wynn’s vehicle, ordering Wynn from the vehicle, and then spotting the heroin in plain view inside the driver’s-side door that Wynn left hanging open. The independent source doctrine allows the admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). Because the heroin in Wynn’s vehicle was discovered wholly independent of the handcuffing, it is not necessary to address whether handcuffing Wynn prior to viewing the heroin actually was a constitutional violation, as the handcuffing itself did not result in any suppressible evidence. See State v. White, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 18731, 2002-Ohio-262, 2002 WL 63294, * 7 (finding the police lacked a lawful basis to handcuff the defendant during a traffic stop, but that the drugs discovered in plain view during the traffic stop should not be suppressed because the drugs were not seized as a result of the handcuffing).

Instead, we conclude that Phillips lawfully seized the heroin pursuant to the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. The heroin came into plain view as a result of a constitutionally valid traffic stop and Phillips’s lawful decision to order Wynn from the vehicle. The heroin was also inadvertently discovered by Phillips during the traffic stop, as there is nothing in the record indicating that Phillips knew there was heroin in the vehicle. Additionally, Phillips testified that he is familiar with the appearance of heroin and immediately recognized the chunky substance in Wynn’s vehicle as heroin based on his six years of police training and experience. Accordingly, all requirements under the plain view doctrine are satisfied. See Brock, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23665, 2010-Ohio-5885 at ¶ 21.