State v. Cremeans , 2022 Ohio 3932 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Cremeans, 2022-Ohio-3932.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ROSS COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 21CA3741
:
v. :
: DECISION AND
JAMES D. CREMEANS, : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
Defendant-Appellant. :
_____________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
James T. Boulger, Chillicothe, Ohio, for Appellant.
Jeffrey C. Marks, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Pamela C. Wells,
Assistant Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, Chillicothe, Ohio, for Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________
Smith, P.J.
{¶1} Appellant, James Cremeans, appeals the judgment entered by the Ross
County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one count of aggravated
possession of drugs, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.11. Cremeans
pled no contest to the charge after the trial court denied his motion to suppress
evidence. On appeal, Cremeans raises three assignments of error contending 1)
that the trial court erred to his prejudice in finding there was reasonable suspicion
and probable cause to believe that he had committed a traffic violation rendering
the traffic stop and his subsequent detention lawful; 2) that the trial court erred to
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 2
his prejudice in finding that an objectively reasonable officer would have believed
he committed a violation of R.C. 4511.39; and 3) that the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his request to supplement the record. For the reasons that
follow, we find no merit to the assignments of error raised by Cremeans.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
FACTS
{¶2} On December 6, 2019, Cremeans was indicted on one count of
aggravated possession of drugs, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.11.
The indictment stemmed from Cremeans’ arrest as a result of a traffic stop. The
record before us indicates that Chillicothe Police Detective, Samantha Taczak,
observed Cremeans’ vehicle turn right at a stop sign at the intersection of Trego
Creek Road and Lunbeck Road without using a turn signal. Cremeans was
traveling eastbound on Trego Creek Road and heading towards U.S. Route 23.
Detective Taczak radioed Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper, Thomas Cassidy,
who was sitting stationary in his cruiser near the intersection of Trego Creek Road
and U.S. Route 23 and asked him to initiate a stop of Cremeans’ vehicle because
she had observed a turn signal violation at the intersection. Trooper Cassidy, who
was working in partnership with the Chillicothe Police Department on a joint drug
interdiction detail, followed Cremeans onto U.S. Route 23 and initiated a traffic
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 3
stop. Trooper Matthew Atwood, a K-9 handler for the Ohio State Highway Patrol,
was also present with his vehicle and assisted Trooper Cassidy.
{¶3} Because the arguments on appeal are limited to whether there was
reasonable suspicion and probable cause to believe that Cremeans had committed a
traffic violation, we simply note that the initial stop led to a request that Cremeans
exit the vehicle, a K-9 sniff of the vehicle, an investigative detention after the K-9
alerted on the vehicle, a search of the vehicle, the discovery of what was later
confirmed to be oxycodone hydrochloride in an amount equal to or exceeding the
bulk amount but less than five times the bulk amount, and Cremeans’ arrest. Upon
being indicted on the single count, Cremeans initially pleaded not guilty and
subsequently filed a motion for leave to file a motion to suppress evidence.
{¶4} The trial court granted the motion for leave and Cremeans filed a
motion to suppress the same day, on June 17, 2020. In his motion, Cremeans
argued that because he was continuing onto Trego Creek Road from Trego Creek
Road after stopping at the stop sign at the three-way intersection of Trego Creek
Road and Lunbeck Road, he was not required to signal a turn. Cremeans further
argued that he “neither turned nor moved left or right upon a highway when he
traveled through the intersection in the right-of-way of Trego Creek Road without
changing or leaving his lane of travel[,]” and therefore that he did not violate R.C.
4511.39.
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 4
{¶5} The suppression hearing was continued twice but finally went forward
on December 2, 2020. Detective Taczak was unable to appear due to being
quarantined, however, Troopers Cassidy and Atwood testified at the hearing.
Cremeans presented no witnesses, but offered two exhibits jointly with the State
and stipulated that the two exhibits accurately depicted the intersection of Trego
Creek Road and Lunbeck Road. Trooper Cassidy testified that from looking at the
map, which was one of the joint exhibits, it appeared as though Lunbeck Road
would continue straight onto eastbound Trego Creek Road at the intersection in
question. He further testified that if a driver was sitting at the stop sign on Trego
Creek Road heading east, as Cremeans was, he did not believe one could travel
straight to continue on to Trego Creek Road, but rather a driver would actually
have to make a 90 degree turn to continue on Trego Creek Road after stopping at
the stop sign. He testified that he believed Officer Taczak had relayed a valid turn
signal violation to him based on Cremeans’ change of direction at the intersection.
On cross examination, Trooper Cassidy disagreed with defense counsel’s
suggestion that the turn at issue was only a curve and he testified that in his view
Cremeans had a stop sign and had to make a 90 degree turn “to get back on
Trego.”
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 5
{¶6} The trial court issued a ruling from the bench denying Cremeans’
motion to suppress which was followed by a written decision denying the motion
on December 11, 2020. In its written decision, the trial court found as follows:
Defendant contends that although Trego Creek Road changes
direction to the right, he had no obligation to use a turn signal
pursuant to O.R.C. § 4511.39, because he neither turned, nor
moved right or left on a roadway. Rather, Defendant argues that
he simply continued on Trego Creek Road. This Court disagrees.
The change of direction made by Defendant is not analogous to
following a continuous curve in a roadway. This was an
intersection. Regardless of whether the turn made by Defendant
was a traditional 90-degree turn[], or something else, the facts
establish that he was turning. * * * Whether the name of the
roadway upon which he choses to proceed changed in
inconsequential.1
{¶7} Thereafter, on December 16, 2020, Cremeans filed a motion for leave
to supplement the record with “additional data embedded in Google Maps, the data
base which is the source of the two stipulated exhibits * * *.” In the memorandum
filed in support of the motion for leave, Cremeans’ counsel represented that on the
afternoon of December 2, 2020, after the suppression hearing had concluded, he
traveled to the intersection at issue and photographed signs appearing from the
western approach to the intersection. The first sign provided notice of the
approach to a stop sign and the second sign was described in the memorandum as a
1
The internal footnote was omitted as denoted by brackets herein but stated that Trooper Cassidy described the turn
as a 90 degree turn south and that the maps in evidence demonstrated that after the initial turn, the roadway
immediately curves back towards the east.
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 6
“horizontal alignment sign” that provided notice of a “reverse turn” on Trego
Creek as the road proceeds through the intersection. The memorandum stated that
Cremeans had asked the State to agree to a supplementation of the record on
December 4, 2020, but the State had refused and questioned whether the sign was
in place at the time of the incident on October 10, 2019. Cremeans further stated
in his memorandum that “Counsel awaits a response from the Ross County
engineer on this question.”
{¶8} The State filed a memo contra to the motion for leave to supplement
the record on January 11, 2021, arguing that the proposed additional exhibits were
irrelevant to the legal questions at issue and may serve to confuse the issues or
result in the need for additional future arguments of issues not raised in the motion
to suppress. The State also argued that there was no evidence presented that the
signs depicted in the proposed additional exhibits were actually present on the date
in question. The trial court ultimately denied Cremeans’ motion on January 15,
2021, stating it had “considered the motion; the Memo Contra filed by the State of
Ohio; and the record * * *.” Thereafter, Cremeans filed his timely appeal to this
Court, assigning three errors for our review.
{¶9} Cremeans attached three exhibits to his appellate brief. Two of the
exhibits were the ones he sought to supplement the record with below and there
was one additional exhibit related to a case cited in support of his arguments on
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 7
appeal. None of these exhibits were before the trial court during the suppression
hearing nor were they permitted to be supplemented to the record below. Thus, the
State filed a motion to strike Cremeans’ appellate brief Appendices A, B, and C
from the record and filed a memorandum in support.
{¶10} Thereafter, Cremeans filed a “Request to Take Judicial Notice in
Response to Motion to Strike.” He attached four exhibits to this request. Two of
the exhibits were the exhibits attached in support of his motion to supplement the
record filed below and the other two exhibits were completely new. The two new
exhibits appear to depict yet another street view and another aerial view of the
intersection at issue. Once again, the State opposed the request to take judicial
notice as evidenced by its filing of a Memorandum Contra to Request to Take
Judicial Notice in Response to Motion to Strike Filed by Appellant 10/18/2021.
The State argued the proposed exhibits were “neither part of the trial court record,
nor should they be considered by this Court.” In response, Cremeans filed a Reply
to Memorandum Contra Request to Take Judicial Notice. Finally, on November 9,
2021, this Court filed an administrative entry striking Appendices A, B, and C
from Cremeans’ appellate brief and denying Cremeans’ request to take judicial
notice. The matter is now before us for final consideration and determination.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE
THE [SIC] DEFENDANT IN FINDING THERE WAS
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 8
REASONABLE SUSPICION AND PROBABLE
CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT HE HAD COMMITTED A
TRAFFIC VIOLATION RENDERING THE TRAFFIC
STOP AND HIS SUBSEQUENT DETENTION
UNLAWFUL FOR PURPOSES OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF
THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF
THE DEFENDANT IN FINDING THAT AN
OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE OFFICER WOULD
HAVE BELIEVED THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED
A VIOLATION OF ORC 4511.39, THE PURPORTED
VIOLATION BEING THE SOLE BASIS FOR THE
STOP AND DETENTION OF THE DEFENDANT.
III. THE TRIAL COURT, HAVING CLAIMED PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE OF AN INTERSECTION AND TAKEN
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF STIPULATED EXHIBITS
DEPICTING THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF IT, COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD WITH ADDITIONAL
DATA FROM THE SAME DATABASE WHICH WAS
A SOURCE OF THE EXHIBITS. THE REQUESTED
SUPPLMENTATION CONSISTED OF THE
DEPICTION OF A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGN
RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A
DRIVER, PASSING THE SIGN ON AN APPROACH
TO THE INTERSECTION, WAS REQUIRED TO USE
A TURN SIGNAL PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS
OF R.C. 4511.39 BEFORE CONTINUING HIS ROUTE
OF TRAVEL THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. THE
TRIAL COURT’S ERROR IN THIS REGARD WAS
PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANT.
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 9
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
{¶11} For ease of analysis, we address Cremeans’ assignments of error out
of order. In his third assignment of error, Cremeans contends that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying his request to supplement the record with
additional exhibits depicting a traffic control sign which Cremeans contends is
relevant to the issue of whether he was required to use his turn signal on an
approach to the intersection in question. The State responds by arguing that
Cremeans had ample time to present the evidence he wished the trial court to
consider and further argues that Cremeans’ motion to supplement the record did
not argue “that the purported supplement to the record fairly and accurately
depicted the intersection in question[,]” but instead “the motion stated that the
county engineer had to be consulted further.” The State argues that Cremeans’
post-hearing and post-decision motion to supplement the record essentially
requested “a second bite at the apple, without allowing further testimony or
explanation by the State.”
Standard of Review
{¶12} “ ‘[T]he admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound
discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's decision to admit or exclude such
evidence cannot be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Kister, 4th
Dist. Athens Nos. 18CA10, 18CA11, 18CA12, 2019-Ohio-3583, ¶ 46, quoting
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 10
State v. Rudolph, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 17CA12, 2019-Ohio-468, ¶ 42, in turn
citing State v. Craft, 4th Dist. Athens No. 97CA53, 1998 WL 255442, *7. “An
abuse of discretion is more than an error, it means that the trial court acted in an
‘unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable’ manner.” Kister at ¶ 46, quoting State
v. Reed, 110 Ohio App.3d 749, 752, 675 N.E.3d 77 (4th Dist. 1996), in turn citing
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). “When applying
the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court is not free merely to substitute
its judgment for that of the trial court.” Reed at 752, citing In re Jane Doe 1, 57
Ohio St.3d 135, 566 N.E.2d 1181 (1991).
{¶13} More specifically, the Tenth District Court of Appeals has observed
as follows regarding a trial court’s discretion in the grant or denial of a motion to
supplement the record:
It is well established that the trial court, in maintaining
reasonable control over the mode and presentation of evidence,
has wide discretion to permit evidence to be offered out of order.
State v. Bayless (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 73, 2 O.O.3d 249, 357
N.E.2d 1035, paragraph three of the syllabus. This includes the
decision to allow a party to reopen its case to present additional
proof. Columbus v. Grant (1981), 1 Ohio App.3d 96, 97, 1 OBR
399, 399-400, 439 N.E.2d 907, 908-909. Thus, a decision by the
trial court to allow a party to reopen its case to offer additional
evidence will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of
discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion, “connotes more than an
error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is
unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v.
Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219. When applying the
abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court may not
substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. See State v.
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 11
Nerren, Wayne App. No. 05CA0052, 2006-Ohio-2855, ¶ 5.
State v. Howard, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2009-11-144, 2010-
Ohio-2303, ¶ 12.
Cairelli v. Brunner, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP854, 2016-Ohio-5535, ¶ 49.
Legal Analysis
{¶14} Cremeans primarily relies on two cases in support of his argument
under this assignment of error. First, Cremeans cites State v. Corthell, 3d Dist.
Seneca No. 13-06-58, 2007-Ohio-4742, and argues that “the trial court’s denial of
the motion, without explanation, precludes a review of the reasonableness of the
decision.” The Corthell court determined that the trial court abused its discretion
when it suppressed from evidence all blood alcohol analysis tests from a motor
vehicle crash, as well as the resulting OVI conviction. Id. at ¶ 9. A review of
Corthell indicates that the trial court sua sponte suppressed the evidence at least in
part in response to Corthell’s motion to dismiss the indictment based upon an
allegation of pre-indictment delay. Id. at ¶ 17-19. The reviewing court ultimately
determined that the trial court’s decision suppressing the evidence was arbitrary for
several reasons, including the that fact that the trial court failed to give reasons for
excluding the evidence. Id. at ¶ 22-25. However, Corthell cites no authority in
support of its reasoning that trial courts must expressly include findings when
issuing a ruling excluding evidence. Further, we find Corthell to be factually
distinguishable primarily because it involved the question of preindictment delay,
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 12
which is not at issue here. Corthell essentially held that when determining whether
to exclude evidence due to pre-indictment delay, trial courts must consider any
actual prejudice claimed by a defendant in light of the state’s reason for the delay.
Id. at ¶ 22-25. Again, in the present case there was no issue of pre-indictment
delay or other overarching issue requiring any sort of detailed analysis when
determining whether to admit or exclude evidence.
{¶15} Cremeans also relies on State v. Allison, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
99AP-1375, 2000 WL 1707849, for the proposition that “[t]he unexplained
exclusion of relevant and material evidence to the prejudice of the defendant
supports a finding that the trial court acted arbitrarily.” In Allison, the defendant
was charged with robbery and three of four of the state’s witnesses described the
perpetrator as having “little or no chest hair” and “no visible tattoos or scars.” Id.
at *2. At trial, the court refused to allow the defendant to remove his shirt in order
to demonstrate to the jury the he did not match the description given by the state’s
witnesses, despite the fact that there was no objection by the state. Id. at *1-2. On
appeal, the Allison court determined that “[g]iven the nature of the state’s
evidence, the exclusion of defendant’s proffered evidence was prejudicial.” Id. at
*3. The court specifically found that the exclusion of the evidence at issue was
prejudicial because the record indicated that “the jury was closely divided on the
state’s sometime internally inconsistent evidence.” Id. The Allison court reasoned
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 13
that “without objection or explanation, the trial court refused defendant’s request to
admit the evidence.” Id.
{¶16} Here, we find that the trial court’s refusal to admit the evidence at
issue in this case occurred at a stage in the proceedings very factually different
from both Corthell and Allison. Neither Corthell nor Allison involved an after-the-
fact attempt to supplement the record with additional evidence after the
proceedings at hand had been concluded. For instance, the ruling at issue in
Corthell was made in anticipation of trial and the ruling in Allison was made
during trial. Further, the case presently before us does not involve a situation
where the trial court acted sua sponte as in Corthell, or excluded evidence without
any objection by the state as in Allison. Instead, the record before us indicates that
Cremeans sought to supplement the record with additional evidence after his
suppression hearing had been concluded, after he had already had a full and
complete opportunity to be heard. Moreover, neither Corthell nor Allison are
binding upon this Court. See Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v.
Wooten, 4th Dist. Pike No. 18CA889, 2018-Ohio-4587, ¶ 30, citing Stapleton v.
Holstein, 131 Ohio App.3d 596, 598, 723 N.E.2d 164 (4th Dist. 1998)(“Only Ohio
Supreme Court decisions and reported opinions of this court are binding upon trial
courts of this district”).
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 14
{¶17} Further, Cremeans did not seek leave to supplement the record until
after the written decision of the trial court denying the motion to suppress had been
issued. More specifically, and as noted by the State, the trial court granted
Cremeans leave to file a motion to suppress out of rule and the record indicates that
the suppression hearing was actually continued twice. Cremeans was represented
by counsel and had a full opportunity to be heard on the issue of the suppression of
evidence. Cremeans and the State admitted two joint exhibits into evidence and
stipulated that the exhibits accurately depicted the intersection at issue. Cremeans’
counsel did not request the opportunity to file a supplemental brief or admit
additional evidence prior to the conclusion of the hearing. Then, five days after the
trial court issued its written decision denying the motion to suppress, Cremeans
filed a motion for leave to supplement the record seeking to add as exhibits
“additional data embedded in Google maps” as well an image depicting a street
view of the intersection.
{¶18} In this case, the motion to supplement the record was met with
objection by the State. The State filed a memorandum contra Cremeans’ motion
for leave arguing that the proposed additional exhibits were irrelevant to the legal
issues presented in the case and that the admission of such may lead to confusion
of the issues and may require future argument of issues not addressed at the
suppression hearing. The State further argued that Cremeans’ motion for leave
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 15
contained no evidence that the traffic signs depicted in one of the proposed
additional exhibits were actually present on the date of the offense, which at that
point was 14 months prior. Moreover and importantly, as noted by the State,
Cremeans’ motion to supplement the record did not represent to the court that the
proposed additional exhibits accurately depicted the intersection at issue. Instead,
the motion stated that the matter required further consultation with the county
engineer.
{¶19} The trial court ultimately issued a decision denying Cremeans’ motion
for leave to supplement the record. In its decision, the trial court stated that it had
“considered the motion, the Memo Contra filed by the State of Ohio; and the
record in this matter[,]” and that the motion was not well taken. In Cairelli, supra,
the appellants argued that the trial court should have granted their motion to
supplement the record which was filed four months after the trial court had issued
its decision quieting title and denying a motion for a temporary restraining order
and preliminary injunction. Cairelli at ¶ 15, 51. The Cairelli court ultimately
determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
appellant’s motion to supplement the record which was filed four months after the
trial court’s decision was issued. Id. at ¶ 51. As set forth above, in reaching its
decision the court noted that trial courts, in furtherance of “maintaining reasonable
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 16
control over the mode and presentation of evidence,” have “wide discretion” with
regard to permitting evidence to be offered out of order. Id. at ¶ 49.
{¶20} We believe the case presently before us is more factually similar to
Cairelli than it is to either Corthell or Allison in that it involves the trial court’s
exercise of its discretion with respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence
that is sought to be supplemented to the record out of order. Considering that
Cremeans had an opportunity to be fully heard on his motion to suppress, which
the trial court granted leave to file out of order, and considering that Cremeans
stipulated that the satellite images and maps of the intersection at issue were
accurately depicted in the joint exhibits offered by both himself and the State
during the hearing, we cannot conclude that the trial court acted arbitrarily in
denying his motion to supplement the record out of order. Thus, we cannot
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for leave to
supplement the record. Our decision particularly results from the stage of the
proceedings in which Cremeans sought to supplement the record, coupled with the
facts that the State opposed the motion and the trial court noted its consideration of
the State’s memo contra, which laid out several potential problems with allowing
the record to be supplemented at that time. Accordingly, we find no merit to
Cremeans’ third assignment of error.
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 17
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
{¶21} In his first assignment of error, Cremeans contends that the trial court
erred to his prejudice in finding there was probable cause to believe that he had
committed a traffic violation, thus rendering the traffic stop and subsequent
detention unlawful. Cremeans argues that the trial court’s findings of fact
concerning the physical characteristics of the intersection at issue were not
supported by competent credible evidence. In support of his argument, Cremeans
relies on several of the above-referenced exhibits that were not part of the trial
court record below, which have been stricken from the record on appeal.
Cremeans further challenges the trial court’s conclusion that he was required to use
his turn signal when continuing onto Trego Creek Road after stopping at the stop
sign at the intersection at issue. He argues that because he was not required to use
a turn a signal when proceeding through the intersection, his failure to signal did
not provide probable cause for law enforcement to stop his vehicle. In response,
the State contends Cremeans’ arguments fail because the trial court’s findings of
fact were supported by competent, credible evidence and the court entered proper
conclusions of law.
Standard of Review
{¶22} Generally, “appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed
question of law and fact.” State v. Codeluppi, 139 Ohio St.3d 165, 2014-Ohio-
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 18
1574, 10 N.E.3d 691, ¶ 7, citing State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-
5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained as follows:
When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes
the role of trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to
resolve factual questions and evaluate the credibility of
witnesses. Consequently, an appellate court must accept the trial
court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent,
credible evidence. Accepting these facts as true, the appellate
court must then independently determine, without deference to
the conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the
applicable legal standard.
(Citations omitted.) Burnside at ¶ 8.
{¶23} However, to the extent we are required to interpret R.C. 4511.39, our
review is de novo. See State v. Smith, 156 Ohio App.3d 238, 2004-Ohio-791, 805
N.E.2d 171, ¶ 6.
Fourth Amendment Principles
{¶24} “The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 14, prohibit unreasonable searches and
seizures.” State v. Emerson, 134 Ohio St.3d 191, 2012-Ohio-5047, 981 N.E.2d
787, ¶ 15. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that Article I, Section 14 of the
Ohio Constitution provides the same protection as the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution in felony cases. State v. Hawkins, 158 Ohio St.3d 94,
2019-Ohio-4210, 140 N.E.3d 577, ¶ 18. “This constitutional guarantee is protected
by the exclusionary rule, which mandates the exclusion at trial of evidence
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 19
obtained from an unreasonable search and seizure.” State v. Petty, 2019-Ohio-
4241, 134 N.E.3d 222, ¶ 11.
{¶25} “ ‘[S]earches [and seizures] conducted outside the judicial process,
without prior approval by [a] judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under
the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-
delineated exceptions.’ ” (Citations omitted.) State v. Conley, 4th Dist. Adams
No. 19CA1091, 2019-Ohio-4172, ¶ 17, quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S.
347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). “Once a defendant demonstrates
that he or she was subjected to a warrantless search or seizure, the burden shifts to
the state to establish that the warrantless search or seizure was constitutionally
permissible.” State v. Dorsey, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 19CA3874, 2019-Ohio-3478,
¶ 13. In this case, it is clear that Trooper Cassidy acted without a warrant in
initiating the traffic stop at issue.
The Initial Stop
{¶26} The record before us indicates that this case involved an investigatory
stop. Investigatory stops “must be supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion
that the driver has, is, or is about to commit a crime, including a minor traffic
violation.” Petty at ¶ 12, citing State v. Hudson, 4th Dist. Gallia No. 17CA19,
2018-Ohio-2717, ¶ 14 and State v. Fowler, 4th Dist. Ross No. 17CA3599, 2018-
Ohio-241, ¶ 16, in turn citing United States v. Williams, 525 Fed.Appx. 330, 332
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 20
(6th Cir. 2013) and Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 501-507, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75
L.Ed.2d 229 (1983). As further explained in Petty:
“To justify a traffic stop based upon reasonable suspicion, the
officer must be able to articulate specific facts that would warrant
a person of reasonable caution to believe that the driver has
committed, or is committing, a crime, including a minor traffic
violation.” State v. Taylor, 2016-Ohio-1231, 62 N.E.3d 591, ¶
18 (4th Dist.). The existence of reasonable suspicion depends on
whether an objectively reasonable police officer would believe
that the driver's conduct constituted a traffic violation based on
the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time
of the stop. Id.Moreover, a police officer may stop the driver of a vehicle after
observing even a de minimis violation of traffic laws. See State
v. Williams, 4th Dist. Ross No. 14CA3436, 2014-Ohio-4897,
2014 WL 5513050, ¶ 9, citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S.
806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), and Dayton v.
Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 665 N.E.2d 1091 (1996), syllabus.
“[A] traffic stop with the proper standard of evidence is valid
regardless of the officer's underlying ulterior motives as the test
is merely whether the officer ‘could’ have performed the act
complained of; pretext is irrelevant if the action complained of
was permissible.” See State v. Koczwara, 7th Dist. Mahoning
No. 13MA149, 2014-Ohio-1946, 2014 WL 1877464, ¶ 22, citing
Erickson at 7 and 11, 665 N.E.2d 1091.
Petty at ¶ 12-13.
{¶27} As stated, “ ‘ “[t]he propriety of an investigative stop by a police
officer must be viewed in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances.” ’
” State v. Strong, 4th Dist. Ross No. 18CA3663, 2019-Ohio-2888, ¶ 19, quoting
State v. Eatmon, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 12CA3498, 2013-Ohio-4812, ¶ 13, in turn
quoting State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291, 414 N.E.2d 1044, paragraph one of
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 21
the syllabus (1980). The totality of the circumstances approach “ ‘allows officers
to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from
and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that “might
well elude an untrained person.” ’ ” Strong at ¶ 19, quoting United States v.
Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) (overruled in
part on separate grounds by Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266,
165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), in turn quoting U.S. v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101
S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981).
{¶28} Here, Cremeans was initially stopped for violating R.C. 4511.39
which governs the use of signals for turning or moving left or right on a highway.
The statute provides in pertinent part as follows:
(A) No person shall turn a vehicle or trackless trolley or move
right or left upon a highway unless and until such person has
exercised due care to ascertain that the movement can be made
with reasonable safety nor without giving an appropriate signal
in the manner hereinafter provided.
When required, a signal of intention to turn or move right or left
shall be given continuously during not less than the last one
hundred feet traveled by the vehicle * * *
{¶29} A violation of R.C. 4511.39 has been held to provide sufficient
justification to initiate a stop of a defendant’s vehicle. See State v. Williams, 4th
Dist. Ross No. 14CA3436, 2014-Ohio-4897, ¶ 9, citing State v. Payne, 4th Dist.
Ross No. 11CA3272, 2012-Ohio-4696, ¶ 18 and State v. Harris, 4th Dist. Ross No.
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 22
11CA3298, 2012-Ohio-4237, ¶ 13. Moreover, this Court has held that the
observation of a traffic violation provides law enforcement with both reasonable
suspicion and probable cause to stop a vehicle. State v. Ware, 2019-Ohio-3885,
145 N.E.3d 973, ¶ 39 (4th Dist.), citing State v. McDonald, 4th Dist. Washington
No. 04CA7, 2004-Ohio-5395, ¶ 20.
Legal Analysis
{¶30} As set forth above, Cremeans contends that the trial court erred to his
prejudice in finding there was reasonable suspicion and probable cause to believe
that he had committed a traffic violation, thus rendering the traffic stop and
subsequent detention unlawful. In support of this assignment of error, Cremeans
initially argues that some of the factual findings made by the trial court were not
supported by the record. In its decision denying Cremeans’ motion to suppress, the
trial court made several findings of fact. Cremeans first challenges the trial court’s
finding that an eastbound driver proceeding straight through the intersection of
Trego Creek Road and Lunbeck Road, after stopping at the stop sign, would travel
onto a private driveway after stopping at the stop sign.
{¶31} As explained, an appellate court must accept the trial court's findings
of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Here, a review of
the record indicates that Cremeans and the State entered two joint exhibits into
evidence. Joint Exhibit A was a paper printout of a satellite view from Google
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 23
Maps of the intersection of Trego Creek Road and Lunbeck Road. Joint Exhibit B
was a paper printout of a map of the same intersection, also from Google Maps.
During the suppression hearing, defense counsel stipulated that although the
exhibits demonstrated “slightly different views * * * they clearly depict the same
intersection and the approaches to it from both west and east.” Further, the trial
court stated during the hearing that it was “familiar with that intersection.”
Thereafter, the State asked the defense to stipulate “that the court take judicial
notice of these depictions.” The defense agreed.
{¶32} After reviewing the transcript of the suppression hearing, including
the testimony of Trooper Cassidy, as well as the joint exhibits depicting the
intersection at issue, we conclude this factual finding made by the trial court is
supported by competent credible evidence in the record. The trial court’s finding
that traveling straight through the intersection would result in traveling down a
private driveway, rather than continuing eastbound on Trego Creek Road, is
supported by the joint exhibits as well as Trooper Cassidy’s testimony. Thus, we
find no merit to this portion of Cremeans’ first assignment of error.
{¶33} Second, Cremeans challenges the trial court’s finding that a driver in
Cremeans’ position at the stop sign could have traffic approaching from both the
right and the left. Again, a review of the intersection, as depicted in the joint
exhibits, coupled with Trooper Cassidy’s testimony indicates that when Cremeans
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 24
stopped at the stop sign while traveling eastbound on Trego Creek Road, he could
have turned left onto Lunbeck Road, proceeded straight onto a private drive, or
turned right to continue eastbound on Trego Creek Road. Further, Trooper
Cassidy testified that the intersection at issue was a three-way stop, with stop signs
at the east and west approach from Trego Creek Road, and when approaching
Trego Creek Road from Lunbeck Road. Thus, when stopped at the stop sign,
according to the exhibits in evidence, a driver in Cremeans’ position at the stop
sign would have to make a right turn to continue eastward on Trego Creek Road.
Thus, we find no merit to this portion of Cremeans’ first assignment of error.
{¶34} Cremeans raises several more arguments in support of his contention
that the trial court’s factual findings regarding the layout of the intersection at issue
were erroneous. For instance, Cremeans argues that “[a] vehicle traveling
eastbound through the intersection on Trego Creek Road never leaves its lane of
travel despite the existence of a pronounced curve to the right as it travels right
through the intersection to cross a bridge.” Thus, although Cremeans argues that
he did not have to leave his lane of travel to proceed eastbound on Trego Creek
Road, he concedes that there was a “pronounced curve to the right” in his lane. He
also argues that he “moved through the intersection in a single continuous
uninterrupted lane of travel.” However, this argument omits the fact that his lane
of travel was actually interrupted by a stop sign according to the record. Further,
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 25
Cremeans primarily relies on exhibits that are not properly part of the appellate
record in support of his arguments that the trial court erred in making certain
findings regarding the layout of the intersection. The exhibits that are part of the
appellate record simply do not support Cremeans’ arguments.
{¶35} Cremeans also challenges the legal conclusion reached by the trial
court that he was required to use a turn signal when proceeding through the
intersection at issue. As set forth above, Cremeans was initially stopped for a
violation of R.C. 4511.39, a violation of which has been held to provide probable
cause for an initial stop. See Williams, supra, at ¶ 9. Cremeans does not contend
he failed to signal, rather he contends that he was not required to signal at the
particular intersection at issue. This argument is primarily based upon his
underlying argument that the intersection at issue provided him an option to
continue straight from Trego Creek Road onto Trego Creek Road after stopping at
the stop sign. However, we have already rejected Cremeans’ arguments that the
trial court’s factual findings that he had to a make a right turn at the intersection to
continue onto Trego Creek Road were not supported by the record. As discussed
above, the trial court found, and the hearing exhibits demonstrated, that if
Cremeans proceeded straight through the intersection he would have traveled onto
a private driveway.
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 26
{¶36} Cremeans further argues that “Trego Creek Road is continuous
through the entire intersection,” and that an eastbound traveler “never leaves its
lane of travel despite the existence of a pronounced curve to the right as it travels
right through the intersection to cross a bridge.” He contends that “[p]roceeding
through the intersection without changing lanes by movement right or left and
without engaging in any turn not required to maintain his lane of travel does not
trigger a turn signal requirement under an objectively reasonable interpretation the
[sic] statute.” In making these arguments, Cremeans seems to concede that if he
was turning left at the intersection he would have had to use a turn signal, but
because he was making a right turn without leaving his lane of travel, he was not
required to signal.
{¶37} In State v. Smith, the defendant argued she was “not required” to use
her turn signal when turning left in a “left turn only” lane. State. Smith, 156 Ohio
App.3d 238, 2004-Ohio-791, 805 N.E.2d 171, ¶ 6 (4th Dist.) However, this Court
rejected her argument, reasoning that “[t]he ‘when required’ language references
the signal requirement in the first paragraph of the statute and is not itself meant to
create a conditional aspect to the statute’s requirements.” Id. at ¶ 8, citing State v.
Lowman, 82 Ohio App.3d 831, 835, 613 N.E.2d 692 (“[T]he phrase ‘when
required’ simply refers to a situation in which the driver intends to change
direction on the roadway”). In Smith, this Court further observed that “ ‘[u]nder
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 27
R.C. 4511.39 and the case law interpreting that statute, a motorist is required to
make a signal of intention anytime he turns.’ ” Smith, supra, at ¶ 8, quoting State
v. Beacham, 4th Dist. Washington No. 03CA36, 2003-Ohio-6211. Further, the
plain language of the statute at issue does not exempt a driver from using a turn
signal when turning right and Cremeans cites no authority in support of his
argument to the contrary.
{¶38} Finally, Cremeans argues that “[e]ngaging a right turn signal would
have alerted no other vehicle at the intersection of a potential conflict with this
course of travel.” However, regarding the duty to signal in order to alert other
drivers, this Court has held that a turn signal must be used even when turning in a
turn-only lane. See State v. Smith, supra, at ¶ 9. Moreover, as recently noted by
the Fifth District Court of Appeals: “The comment to R.C. 4511.39(A) provides,
‘the section requires a signal to be given not only before making a right or left turn,
but also before changing lanes, passing another vehicle, or pulling into or out of a
parking place.’ ” State v. Snell, 5th Dist. Licking No. 20CA0064, 2021-Ohio-482,
¶ 20, quoting 1975 Legislative Service Comment to R.C. 4511.39(A).
{¶39} Contrary to Cremeans’ arguments, the record before us indicates that
in order to continue eastbound onto Trego Creek Road, Cremeans had to make
anywhere from a 45-degree right turn to a 90-degree right turn after stopping at a
stop sign at a three-way intersection. We cannot conclude that the trial court erred
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 28
in finding that Trooper Cassidy correctly interpreted the statute to require the use
of a turn signal under R.C. 4511.39(A) under these conditions. See State v.
Beacham, supra, at ¶ 16 (finding that R.C. 4511.39 requires a motorist “to make a
signal of intention anytime he turns[,]” and noting the intersection at issue was an
approximate 45-degree angle). Although Beacham is slightly factually
distinguishable in that it involved a left-hand turn rather than a right-hand turn, we
nevertheless find it applicable and instructive.
{¶40} Thus, because Cremeans does not dispute that he failed to signal a
right turn at the intersection of Trego Creek Road and Lunbeck Road and because
we have upheld the trial court’s determinations that Cremeans was required to
signal a turn under R.C. 4511.39 in light of the conditions that existed at the
intersection at issue, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in denying
Cremeans’ motion to suppress based upon the ground that the initial investigatory
stop was invalid. Further, we conclude that an objectively reasonable police
officer would believe that Cremeans’ conduct constituted a traffic violation based
on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the stop and
thus, Trooper Cassidy’s stop of Cremeans’ vehicle was constitutionally valid.
Accordingly, we find no merit to Cremeans’ first assignment of error and it is
overruled.
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 29
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
{¶41} In his second assignment of error, Cremeans contends the trial court
erred to his prejudice in finding that a reasonable officer would have believed the
defendant committed a violation of R.C. 4511.39, which was the sole basis for the
stop and detention. Cremeans argues that “[a] threshold question in determining
whether Cassidy’s interpretation of the statute was objectively reasonable, though
mistaken, is whether the statute is ambiguous.” The State argues, however, that
Trooper Cassidy “used sound, reasoned judgment to conclude that Appellant had
run afoul of R.C. 4511.39 * * *.” The State further argues that this Court, in State
v. Petty, held that an officer’s mistake of law was objectively reasonable, despite
finding the statute at issue was unambiguous. State v. Petty, 2019-Ohio-4241, 134
N.E.3 222 (4th Dist.). Cremeans’ argument seems to hinge on the underlying
assumption that Trooper Cassidy’s interpretation of the statute at issue was
mistaken and the State’s argument seems to overlook the fact that the trial court
neither found R.C. 4511.39 was ambiguous, nor found Trooper Cassidy’s
interpretation of the statute to a be a mistake.
{¶42} The arguments raised under this assignment of error clearly stem from
a recent decision by the United State Supreme Court, Heien v. North Carolina, 574
U.S. 54, 135 S.Ct. 530, 536, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014), which essentially stands for
the proposition that objectively reasonable mistakes of law by law enforcement
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 30
officers can still provide reasonable suspicion justifying a stop. In Heien, the
Supreme Court stated as follows:
As the text indicates and we have repeatedly affirmed, “the
ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is
‘reasonableness.’ ” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 134 S.Ct. 2473,
2482, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014) (some internal quotation marks
omitted). To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth
Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government
officials, giving them “fair leeway for enforcing the law in the
community's protection.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S.
160, 176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949). We have
recognized that searches and seizures based on mistakes of fact
can be reasonable. The warrantless search of a home, for
instance, is reasonable if undertaken with the consent of a
resident, and remains lawful when officers obtain the consent of
someone who reasonably appears to be but is not in fact a
resident. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 183-186, 110
S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990). By the same token, if
officers with probable cause to arrest a suspect mistakenly arrest
an individual matching the suspect's description, neither the
seizure nor an accompanying search of the arrestee would be
unlawful. See Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 802-805, 91 S.Ct.
1106, 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971). The limit is that “the mistakes
must be those of reasonable men.” Brinegar, supra, at 176, 69
S.Ct. 1302.
But reasonable men make mistakes of law, too, and such
mistakes are no less compatible with the concept of reasonable
suspicion. Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of
an officer's understanding of the facts and his understanding of
the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on
either ground. Whether the facts turn out to be not what was
thought, or the law turns out to be not what was thought, the
result is the same: The facts are outside the scope of the law.
There is no reason, under the text of the Fourth Amendment or
our precedents, why this same result should be acceptable when
reached by way of a reasonable mistake of fact, but not when
reached by way of a similarly reasonable mistake of law.
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 31
Heien at 536.
{¶43} Here, the trial court found “that Defendant was required to use a turn
signal pursuant to O.R.C. § 4511.39, and his failure to do so provided reasonable
and articulable suspicion, and probable cause to believe, that he committed a traffic
violation – thereby justifying the traffic stop.” The trial court further stated that
“even if the unique intersection at [issue] somehow fell outside the purview of
O.R.C. 4511.39 * * * an objectively reasonable officer would have believed
Defendant’s conduct constituted a traffic violation, based upon the totality of the
circumstances known to the officer at the time of the stop[.]” However, there was
no finding by the trial court that the statute at issue was ambiguous. Because the
trial court concluded that law enforcement correctly interpreted the traffic laws to
conclude that Cremeans had violated R.C. 4511.39, and because the trial court did
not find that the statute was ambiguous, it was not necessary for the court to
determine whether an objectively reasonable officer would have believed
Defendant’s conduct constituted a traffic violation “if the unique intersection at
[issue] somehow fell outside the purview of O.R.C. 4511.39[.]” Further, because
we have determined that the record supports the trial court’s finding that the
trooper correctly interpreted the traffic laws and that Cremeans had violated R.C.
4511.39, we need not go the additional step of determining whether a good faith
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 32
but erroneous belief by law enforcement that Cremeans violated the statute would
support the denial of the motion to suppress. See State v. Beacham, supra, at ¶ 1.
{¶44} Cremeans also argues that this Court’s holding in State v. Petty that an
officer’s mistake of law was objectively reasonable, despite finding the statute at
issue was unambiguous is in conflict with the reasoning of the Fifth District Court
of Appeals in State v. Trout, 2019-Ohio-124, 128 N.E.3d 900. In Trout, the court
stated that “Heien does not support the proposition that a police officer acts in an
objectively reasonable manner by misinterpreting an unambiguous statute.” Id. at
¶ 22, quoting United States v. Stanbridge, 813 F.3d 1032, 1037 (7th Cir. 2016).
Cremeans argues that the Trout holding essentially means “there can be no
reasonably objective mistake in interpreting an unambiguous statute[,]” which he
argues is in conflict with our holding in Petty, supra.{¶45} First, we must note that our holding in Petty was based largely on the
fact that although we did not find R.C. 4511.36(A)(2) to be ambiguous, another
appellate district had found the statute to be ambiguous, and this Court had
previously stated, albeit in dicta, that R.C. 4511.36(A) could “arguably” be
interpreted to require a motorist, when making a left turn, to turn into the lane
closest to the center lane. Petty at ¶ 25. Further, the concurring opinion in Petty
reluctantly agreed with the majority, essentially doing so only because of the sense
that its hands were tied, so to speak, believing the Court to the bound by prior
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 33
precedent. Thus, we cannot conclude that our decision in Petty is in direct conflict
with Trout. Further, as stated above, we do not reach this legal question because it
is not part of the actual controversy before us. The fact that we do not reach the
argument is further supported by Trout. Trout at ¶ 22 (“The language of the statute
is clear; therefore, the trial court did not need to address the question of whether
the troopers acted in an objectively reasonable manner”).
{¶46} In conclusion, we have found no merit to any of the assignments of
error raised by Cremeans on appeal. Thus, we cannot conclude the trial court erred
in denying either his motion to suppress or his motion for leave to supplement the
record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Ross App. No. 21CA3741 34
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and costs be assessed to
Appellant.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Ross
County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON
BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR
THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed 60 days upon
the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant
to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the
pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will
terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day period, or the failure of the
Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 45-day
appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme
Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal
prior to expiration of 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such
dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule
27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Abele, J. and Wilkin, J. concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court,
_____________________________
Jason P. Smith
Presiding Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final
judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the
date of filing with the clerk.