OH11: Trial court’s finding of no RS to delay the stop was clearly erroneous

The trial court’s finding that the officer delayed the stop without reasonable suspicion is clearly erroneous because the record does not support the finding. State v. Taylor, 2016-Ohio-7745, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4613 (11th Dist. Nov. 14, 2016):

[*P28] Further, Trooper Miller’s viewing of the video gave him reasonable suspicion/probable cause to believe appellant was committing other illegal activity, i.e., that appellee was concealing contraband on/in his person. See State v. Wesley, 5th Dist. Stark No. 1999CA00226, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 1280, *10-*11 (Mar. 27, 2000). After viewing the video, Trooper Miller said he was “confident” appellee had concealed something so the trooper decided to obtain a body cavity search warrant. Thus, Trooper Miller was authorized to detain appellee as long as necessary to obtain the warrant. It is undisputed that Trooper Miller spent the balance of the additional 24 minutes attempting to do this by talking to his Lieutenant and appellee’s parole officer. Appellee’s detention for this period was thus likewise objectively reasonable. As a result, the entire additional 24 minutes during which appellee was detained was accounted for and his detention during this period was reasonable.

[*P29] In view of the foregoing, the trial court erred in finding that Trooper Miller “acknowledges that he had no basis to conduct a warrantless search [of appellee].” As noted, Trooper Miller had probable cause to search appellee, but understood he needed a body cavity search warrant to gain access to the private area in question. Contrary to the trial court’s finding, the fact that Trooper Miller’s efforts to obtain the warrant were ultimately unsuccessful — due to circumstances beyond his control — is irrelevant to the analysis.

[*P30] Further, while the trial court implied Trooper Miller did not diligently conduct his investigation while preparing the citation/warning and consulting with the other officials, there is no evidence in the record supporting such finding. The court’s finding was thus not supported by competent, credible evidence and we are not bound to accept it. In fact, in light of everything Trooper Miller accomplished in that additional 24 minutes, it is difficult to imagine how his investigation could have been more diligently pursued.

[*P31] We therefore hold that appellee’s continued detention for 24 minutes after the search of his vehicle was completed was justified by the circumstances as they unfolded, making appellee’s abandonment or disposal of the heroin in Trooper Dennison’s cruiser voluntary and not subject to suppression.