OH5: Place and time of encounter plus serious sweating and making not much sense when talking here added up to RS

Place and time of encounter plus serious sweating and making not much sense when talking added up to reasonable suspicion. State v. Doering, 2025-Ohio-1297 (5th Dist. Apr. 10, 2025).* An interesting set of facts:

[*P20] Based on the facts of this case, we agree with the trial court and conclude that Osicka had reasonable and articulable suspicion to temporarily detain appellant and elevate the encounter from consensual to “investigative”. Although appellant disputes the trial court’s factual findings and claims his profuse sweating was due to pure nervousness rather than drug use, the trial court’s findings are supported by competent, credible evidence and are entitled to deference. Appellant was sitting in his car in the gas station parking lot for several hours late at night (until 2:57 a.m. when the officers arrived). Upon approaching the vehicle, both officers noticed appellant sweating profusely – despite the cold weather – acting erratically, speaking rapidly and, at times, incoherently — providing narratives that did not make sense. Based on their training and experience, both officers suspected appellant was under the influence of narcotics. Osicka’s suspicion was also heightened when appellant volunteered to him there was nothing illegal in the car and that he was on probation and was “clean.”

[*P21] Then, after Osicka told him to “hold tight” so the officers could discuss next steps, the officers requested consent to search the vehicle, but appellant refused so they asked appellant to exit his vehicle and decided to perform a K9 sniff. Upon exiting his vehicle, appellant told Osicka he had “drugs.” The sniff was performed contemporaneously with the reasonable detention and alerted the officers to the presence of drugs. All of this happened within minutes.

[*P22] Under these facts and circumstances, reasonable and articulable suspicion existed that there were drugs and/or drug contraband either on appellant’s person or inside his vehicle sufficient to warrant the investigative detention. The trial court specifically found the officers were credible witnesses and justified in their belief based on that training and experience. Even a reasonable person, without such training and experience, would be suspicious when confronted with these facts. As a result, the officers properly extended the initial consensual encounter to an investigative detention and did not violate appellant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.