OH6: The fact defendant was acquitted for the underlying traffic offense is meaningless if there was PC

The question at the time of arrest is probable cause, not convictability. The fact defendant was acquitted on the underlying traffic offense does not mean that there was no probable cause. State v. Zervos, 2010 Ohio 1998, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 1663 (6th Dist. May 7, 2010).

The continuation of defendant’s stop was not consensual, and the officers said so. Also, the CI was not corroborated, so there was no probable cause. State v. McCord, 2010 Ohio 1979, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 1637 (8th Dist. May 6, 2010)

[*P12] In the case before us, the stop was not consensual. At the suppression hearing, Officer Taylor testified that although the Hummer was not “pinned” in, there was no question the occupants of the car were not free to leave. Where it is not a consensual encounter, the Fourth Amendment requires that the officers possess a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. In this case, the officers’ suspicion was based on an anonymous tip as well as knowledge of a prior conviction.

. . .

[*P17] We do not mean to suggest that McCord and the men with him that day are necessarily innocent of the charges brought against them by the state. Nor do we fail to appreciate the pressure the police are under to keep our streets safe and crime-free. Quite the contrary. Their search uncovered heroin, ecstasy, and cocaine; the officers knew of an earlier arrest McCord had for a drug-related offense. Nevertheless, the Fourth Amendment does not permit officers to conduct searches and seizures on any person known to have a criminal record without corroborating information that that same person is presently involved in criminal activity.

When stopped, defendant said that he had the baseball bat in the backseat for protection. That was sufficient to look for a weapon. He was frisked and a folding knife was found. The officer asked if he had “anything else on his person.” “The defendant stated, ‘To the best of my knowledge, I don’t have anything.’ Wilmot replied, ‘What does that mean?’ and the defendant said, ‘There shouldn’t be anything.’ … Wilmot asked again, ‘What, if anything, you know, do you have on you?’ The defendant then admitted that he had drugs and produced two diazepam tablets wrapped in cellophane from the coin pocket on his right hip.” The diazepam was lawfully found. State v. Michelson, 160 N.H. 270, 999 A.2d 372 (2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.