OH2: State didn’t support basis for stop; remanded

Poorly developed record by the state results in remand. The state didn’t support its basis for the stop. State v. Scerba, 2025-Ohio-2791 (2d Dist. Aug. 8, 2025). Remember, in warrantless searches, the prosecution carries the burden of proof:

[*P34] The record was very poorly developed at the suppression hearing, and the State did not file a responsive brief in this appeal. Officer Ivory’s testimony suggested that he first suspected Scerba of traffic infractions, such as blocking the alley and operating his vehicle without lights, but also suspected other criminal activity, such as “hand-to-hand drug transactions.”

[*P35] Regarding any suspected traffic violations, it is not clear how Scerba blocked the alley when he left his vehicle in the grassy area adjacent to the alley, and it is not clear if Scerba’s lights were on or off when his vehicle was moving down the alley; the lights were apparently off when it was stopped, based on Ivory’s testimony. Ivory was uncertain whether the alley was a public thoroughfare, and he testified that it was not marked with lanes or paved. He did not mention the presence of any other vehicles in the alley that were “blocked” by Scerba. Ivory also did not commence any of the tasks associated with routine traffic stops addressed to roadway safety, such as issuing a citation.

. . .

[*P40] In Scerba’s case, however, such reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory detention was absent. Officer Ivory initiated the bulletin check, and he did not see anyone leaning or reaching into Scerba’s vehicle or have any report of suspected drug activity. Although Scerba was in a high-crime area, he was also in the vicinity of an open convenience store and gas station where many other people were regularly present. He was not parked in a private driveway, and Ivory did not see him engaging in furtive movements or describe any other actions that he found to be consistent with drug activity. There were no open containers of alcohol or indicia of impairment. In our view, under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court erred in overruling Scerba’s motion to suppress, because Scerba did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot before detaining Scerba.

[*P41] Scerba’s assignments of error are sustained. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for the trial court to grant the motion to suppress and conduct further proceedings as appropriate.