State v. Redway , 2020 Ohio 3826 ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Redway, 2020-Ohio-3826.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-19-037
Appellee Trial Court No. 2018CR0207
v.
Rolando Redway DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: July 24, 2020
*****
Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and
David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
W. Alex Smith, for appellant.
*****
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Rolando Redway, appeals from the April 30, 2019 judgment of
the Wood County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of possession of marijuana,
R.C. 2925.11(A) and 2925.11(C)(3)(e), a felony of the third degree, with a specification
for forfeiture of a cell phone in a drug case, R.C. 2941.1417(A), after acceptance of his
no contest plea as part of a negotiated plea agreement. The remaining count for drug
trafficking was dismissed. The trial court sentenced appellant to community control. For
the reasons which follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On appeal, appellant asserts the following single assignment of error:
The Trial Court Erred in Denying the Motion to Suppress.
{¶ 3} On appeal, appellant argues he entered his plea as a result of the denial of his
motion to suppress, which he contends the trial court erroneously denied. He asserts only
that the detention and seizure of appellant violated his constitutional rights under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because the
detention exceeded a reasonable time period to complete the traffic stop.
{¶ 4} Appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a Crim.R. 12(C)(3) motion to
suppress involves a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Hairston, 156 Ohio St. 3d
363, 2019-Ohio-1622, 126 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 29 (Donnelly, J., concurring), quoting State v.
Burnside, 100 Ohio St. 3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8; State v. Hawkins,
158 Ohio St. 3d 94, 2019-Ohio-4210, 140 N.E.3d 577, ¶ 16. The appellate court conducts
a de novo review of application of the law to the facts but defers to the trial court’s
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and determination of the questions of fact which
are supported by competent and credible evidence. Hairston, citing Burnside.
{¶ 5} Like a Terry stop, defined in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20
L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), the scope and duration of the traffic stop must last no longer than is
necessary to effectuate the purpose for which the stop was made. Rodriguez v. United
2.
States, 575 U.S. 348, 354, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492. A traffic stop requires a
“reasonably diligent” check of the driver’s license, criminal record, and automobile
registration, and proof of insurance. Id. at 355, 357. However, an officer cannot make
unrelated inquiries in order to “‘measurably extend the duration of the stop,’” id. at 355,
quoting Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333, 129 S. Ct. 781, 72 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2009), or
unduly delay the stop to conduct a dog sniff. Rodriguez at 357.
{¶ 6} In the case before us, the state highway patrol trooper testified that on
April 18, 2018, near the exit ramp of the I-280 interchange, he observed, based on his
past experience of observing drivers, several unusual behaviors as appellant passed by the
trooper. The trooper began to follow appellant and observed more unusual behavior
shortly before observing appellant move into the exit lane without signaling, a violation
of R.C. 4511.39. The trooper then decided to initiate a traffic stop after the vehicle
passed through the tollgate.
{¶ 7} The patrol car dash cam admitted into evidence recorded the stop. When the
trooper activated the overhead lights on his vehicle, appellant activated his right turn
signal and pulled off onto the right shoulder 10-to-15 seconds later. The trooper ran the
plate before exiting his vehicle. He approached the vehicle at 17:40:54. He explained
the reason for the stop and asked appellant for his license. The trooper found appellant to
be almost too polite at times. He asked appellant about his destination and appellant
responded that he was visiting a cousin in Detroit, Michigan, on Saturday. The
explanation was suspicious to the trooper because it was Wednesday. The trooper
3.
inquired how appellant was able to take time off work and appellant indicated he drove
for Uber and was his own boss. Appellant also indicated that he had made too much
money driving for Uber the prior year and had paid $6,000 in taxes. That comment also
seem suspicious to the trooper because he never heard anyone say they made too much
money. The trooper testified he carried on the conversation to ensure the violation was
not the result of impairment or fatigue. The trooper estimated this encounter took three
minutes, ending at 17:43.07. The trooper returned to his vehicle to confirm the
registration and license, and checked for outstanding warrants. Because of the unusual
behaviors and comments, the trooper, at 17:44:08, requested a K-9 handler to respond to
the stop. At 17:45:12, the trooper gave appellant’s information to the dispatcher.
Meanwhile, the border patrol agent working with the trooper checked the information
through his data bases and received information that appellant was involved in an
international drug smuggling ring out of the Philadelphia airport. The first K-9 handler
was unable to respond, so the trooper contacted a second handler at 17:45:59. It took the
K-9 officer six minutes to respond (17:52:12). The dispatch had not yet responded with
the information needed to finalize the traffic stop and the trooper assumed it was because
the criminal history check takes more time. After the K-9 handler arrived, he approached
appellant’s vehicle to speak with appellant at 17:52:44 and walked the dog around the
car, following which the dog alerted to the vehicle. The handler was finished at 17:54:02.
The trooper decided to search the vehicle and the search began at 17:58:17. At that point
in time, the trooper had not yet received the information from dispatch he needed to issue
4.
a traffic ticket or a warning, so the mission of the traffic stop was not yet complete. Upon
opening the trunk, the trooper found approximately fourteen pounds of marijuana.
{¶ 8} On appeal, appellant does not challenge the stop itself. He asserts only that
the traffic stop was unconstitutional because it should have been completed in five
minutes or less, but the trooper extended it to 13 minutes in order to allow time for a K-9
unit to arrive. We find this argument unfounded. Clear and convincing evidence in the
record supports the trial court’s finding that the trooper acted in a diligent manner in
processing the traffic stop. Although the trooper called in a canine unit, he continued to
process the traffic ticket in his normal manner and any delay was due to the processing of
the request by the dispatch. Therefore, we find the traffic stop and seizure of appellant
did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
We find appellant’s sole assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 9} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudicial to
appellant and that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Wood County
Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
5.
State v. Redway
C.A. No. WD-19-037
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
6.