State v. Plues

[Cite as State v. Plues, 2012-Ohio-2519.]
COURT OF APPEALS
ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs-
Case No. 11-COA-038
HAROLD W. PLUES
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Ashland Municipal Court,
Case No. 11-CRB-390 AB
JUDGMENT: Possession of a Schedule IV Substance
Conviction Reversed and the Charge
Ordered Dismissed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 5, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RICHARD P. WOLFE II JOSEPH P. KEARNS, JR.
Director of Law Mason, Mason & Kearns
1213 E. Main St. Post Office Box 345
Ashland, Ohio 44805 153 West Main Street
Ashland, Ohio 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-038 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Harold W. Plues appeals the September 2, 2011
Judgment Entry entered by the Ashland Municipal Court, which found him guilty of
possession of a controlled substance. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On April 28, 2011, Ashland City Police were dispatched to the residence
at 9 Thomas Court, Ashland, Ohio, in response to a possible domestic disturbance.
Officers Jeremy Jarvis and Brian Kunzen separately arrived at the scene. Upon their
arrival, the officers heard arguing and yelling from the upstairs of the residence. A
young girl answered the door. The officers ordered the individuals, whom were
subsequently identified as Appellant and Leslie Johnson, his girlfriend, to come
downstairs. Officer Kunzen stated Appellant was carrying a bag of possessions as he
walked down the stairs. Officer Jarvis spoke with Johnson, and Officer Kunzen stepped
outside with Appellant.
{¶3} During their conversation, Appellant advised Officer Kunzen he had been
drinking that evening. Officer Kunzen “observed several cues as well.” Transcript of
Suppression Hearing at 16. Appellant was not forthcoming with the details of the
argument between himself and Johnson. Although Johnson acknowledged there had
been violence, arguing, and fighting, she would not cooperate with pressing charges.
Officer Kunzen arrested Appellant for disorderly conduct. After handcuffing Appellant,
the officer conducted a pat down search and found one diazepam pill. Appellant
informed Officer Kunzen he did not have a prescription for diazepam. Appellant was
subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance.
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-038 3
{¶4} Appellant filed a motion to suppress. The trial court conducted a hearing
on the motion on July 25, 2011. Via Judgment Entry filed July 26, 2011, the trial court
overruled Appellant’s motion. The trial court found the officers had probable cause to
arrest Appellant and the questions posed by the officers to Appellant regarding the pill
were not asked to obtain a confession, but rather to determine the status of the pill.
Thereafter, Appellant appeared before the trial court and entered a plea of no contest to
the charge. The trial court accepted the plea, found Appellant guilty, and sentenced him
accordingly.
{¶5} It is from this conviction and sentence Appellant appeals, raising the
following as error:
{¶6} “I. THE TRAIL [SIC] COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PHYSICAL
ARREST OF THE APPELLANT WAS PROPER.”
I
{¶7} Appellant argues his physical arrest was improper because the offense
was a minor misdemeanor and his behavior did not fall within any of the four exceptions
set forth in R.C. 2935.26(A), which would warrant an arrest.
{¶8} In State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323, 2003–Ohio–3931, 792 N.E.2d 175,
the Ohio Supreme Court held the Ohio Constitution provides a greater protection than
the Fourth Amendment against warrantless arrests for minor misdemeanors. Police
officers may briefly detain, but may not conduct a custodial arrest, or a search incident
to that arrest, for a minor-misdemeanor offense when none of the R.C. 2935.26
exceptions apply. Id. at ¶ 25.
{¶9} R.C. 2935.26(A) provides:
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-038 4
{¶10} “Notwithstanding any other provision of the Revised Code, when a law
enforcement officer is otherwise authorized to arrest a person for the commission of a
minor misdemeanor, the officer shall not arrest the person, but shall issue a citation,
unless one of the following applies:
{¶11} 1) The offender requires medical care or is unable to provide for his own
safety.
{¶12} 2) The offender cannot or will not offer satisfactory evidence of his identity.
{¶13} 3) The offender refuses to sign the citation.
{¶14} 4) The offender has previously been issued a citation for the commission
of that misdemeanor and has failed to do one of the following: * * * “
{¶15} Officers Jarvis and Kunzen based Appellant’s arrest on the fact he was
“unable to provide for his own safety.” Officer Jarvis testified, upon his initial contact
with Appellant, Appellant “seemed to be intoxicated”. Officer Jarvis added “at that point”
Appellant’s condition was such that he would not have let Appellant drive. Officer Jarvis
recalled Appellant coming downstairs as he entered the residence. The officer could
not say whether Appellant had any difficulty walking down the stairs as he was focused
on making sure Appellant did not have anything in his hands. Officer Jarvis stated
Appellant obeyed his instructions to remain on the porch and speak with Officer
Kunzen.
{¶16} Officer Kunzen testified, when he arrived at the residence, he heard
arguing and yelling coming from upstairs. During their conversation, Appellant told
Officer Kunzen he had been drinking alcohol that evening. The officer added he “had
observed several cues as well.” Officer Kunzen stated he and Appellant had a
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-038 5
conversation about Appellant’s ability to drive home due to his intoxicated state. Officer
Kunzen indicated Appellant did not live in close proximity to Johnson’s home. He
further testified he “made the determination that [Appellant] was not able to care for
himself due to his violent, turbulent behavior we witnessed when we were there.”
Transcript of Suppression Hearing at 18.
{¶17} We find this evidence insufficient to support the trial court's conclusion the
police had probable cause to believe Appellant, in his intoxicated state, was not able to
care for himself, justifying his arrest pursuant to R.C. 2935.26(A)(1). For a more
detailed discussion of this Court’s analysis of that statute see, State v. Waters, 181 Ohio
App. 3d 424, 2009-Ohio-1338 at ¶28-33.
{¶18} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
{¶19} Appellant’s conviction on the possession of a schedule IV substance is
reversed and that charge ordered dismissed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
s/ John W. Wise _____________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE
Ashland County, Case No. 11-COA-038 6
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
HAROLD W. PLUES :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 11-COA-038
For the reason stated in our accompanying Opinion, Appellant’s conviction by the
Ashland County Court of Common Pleas on possession of a schedule IV substance is
reversed and that charge ordered dismissed. Costs to Appellee.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ Patricia A. Delaney _________________
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
s/ John W. Wise______________________
HON. JOHN W. WISE