DocketNumber: C.A. No. 02CA008171.
Judges: SLABY, Presiding Judge.
Filed Date: 4/30/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made: {¶ 1} Appellant, the State of Ohio ("State"), appeals from the judgment in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, that granted the motion to suppress of Defendant, Dwayne Taylor. We reverse.
{¶ 2} On August 12, 2002, the State filed a complaint against Defendant and asserted he possessed cocaine, in violation of R.C.
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of [the State] when it determined that Officer Palmer had no reasonable, articulable belief that [Defendant] was armed, dangerous or involved in criminal activity when he was patted down, since the record clearly reflects Officer Palmer conducted the legal pat-down for his safety and to avoid any dangerous conditions, as he suspected [Defendant] to be involved in criminal activity."
{¶ 3} In its sole assignment of error, the State avers that Officer Palmer conducted a legal pat-down because he had a reasonable, articulable belief that Defendant was armed, dangerous or involved in criminal activity. As such, the trial court erroneously rejected the magistrate's decision, thereby granting Defendant's motion to suppress.
{¶ 4} When ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court makes both factual and legal findings. State v. Jones, 9th Dist. No. 20810, 2002-Ohio-1109, at ¶ 9. Accordingly, "the evaluation of evidence and the credibility of witnesses are issues for the trier of fact." State v.Smith (1991),
{¶ 5} Generally, an officer must have a "specific and articulable" belief that an individual is armed and dangerous before conducting a pat-down search for weapons. Terry v. Ohio (1968),
{¶ 6} In the instant case, the record reveals that Officer Palmer observed a Chevy vehicle travelling at an excessive rate of speed. The vehicle contained three individuals. Additionally, Officer Palmer noticed that the vehicle had out-of-state license plates, and it appeared that someone had tampered with the back hatch lock and the driver's door lock and had re-painted the vehicle with black primer paint. Based on these observations, Officer Palmer stopped the vehicle. When he approached the vehicle, Officer Palmer saw Defendant with his legs outstretched and noticed he was wearing an ankle monitor. The officer had never encountered an individual wearing an ankle monitor outside of the house; therefore, despite Defendant's assertion that he had permission to be out of the house, Officer Palmer thought "something [was] going on" and decided to verify this assertion. As such, Officer Palmer asked Defendant to step out of the vehicle and accompany him to his police cruiser. Prior to placing Defendant in his cruiser and for safety purposes, Officer Palmer conducted a pat-down, and found crack cocaine in the right front pocket of Defendant's jeans.
{¶ 7} In light of the facts of this case, we find that Officer Palmer had a legitimate reason to place Defendant in the police cruiser. As Officer Palmer's reason to place Defendant in the police cruiser was legitimate, his decision to conduct a pat-down before placing Defendant in his cruiser was also legitimate. See Weese at ¶ 13, citingLozada,
{¶ 8} The State's sole assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, is reversed.