OH6: Flawed justification for ordering def out of vehicle wasn’t prejudicial where Mimms allowed it in any event

“Nevertheless, while the officers may have been mistaken in their belief that a search of the vehicle could be performed absent a custodial arrest, their flawed justification for ordering the occupants out of the vehicle was not prejudicial here. This is because the officers were permitted to order the passengers out of the vehicle as a matter of course under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Pennsylvania v. Mimms … (1977) and Maryland v. Wilson … (1997).” Then the patdown for weapons was reasonable. State v. Martin, 2019-Ohio-5147, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 5220 (6th Dist. Dec. 13, 2019).*

“While on patrol, the detectives observed the red Prism in which Williams was a passenger and another vehicle engage in what they believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction. Detective Gray explained that the vehicles stopped facing in opposite directions, the drivers of the vehicles exchanged something quickly, and then the vehicles drove away. The evidence at trial supported a conclusion that, based on their experience, the detectives had a reasonable articulable suspicion that the occupants of both vehicles had engaged in criminal (drug) activity, warranting a stop of their vehicles.” Therefore, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective. State v. Williams, 2019-Ohio-5142, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 5217 (2d Dist. Dec. 13, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.