OH9: Repeated questions to defendant when stopped about why he was avoiding the officers did not show consent

Repeated questions to defendant when stopped about why he was avoiding the officers did not show consent. “Here, based upon the facts as presented by the officers, we cannot agree with the trial court that the officers’ encounter with Mr. Gilmore was consensual. Critical to our conclusion is the repeated emphasis that the officers placed on Mr. Gilmore purportedly attempting to evade them. The officers maintained that Mr. Gilmore, upon first seeing the officers, immediately attempted to avoid them. Thereafter, when they regained sight of Mr. Gilmore on a different street, they pulled alongside Mr. Gilmore, and both officers exited the car. Officer Hadbavny first confronted Mr. Gilmore by asking why he was trying to avoid the officers.” State v. Gilmore, 2015-Ohio-2931, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 2829 (9th Cir. July 22, 2015).*

“There was probable cause here that Defendant possessed a gun and that the gun was inside the vehicle. Again, multiple officers saw Defendant brandish a weapon in an attempt to evade law enforcement. Although Defendant’s motion states that he denies the claim that he pointed his gun at law enforcement, no evidence was offered to controvert the testimony that officers’ witnessed him pointing it at Torres’ head.” United States v. Ford, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96101 (E.D.Tex. June 25, 2015).*