Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court rules state trooper justified drug arrest during traffic stop

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 31, 2016

The 1st District Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court’s decision to suppress evidence of illegal drug possession obtained during a traffic stop.

The judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas held that a seven-minute traffic stop was “unreasonably prolonged” by an arresting trooper’s questioning of a driver and passenger.

A three-judge appellate panel in the district court, however, held that the officer had reasonable suspicion under the circumstances and that seven minutes is an average amount of time for a traffic stop.

According to case summary, Debra Emmons was arrested for illegal drug possession after a stop of a vehicle which she owned but was riding in as a passenger.

Court documents state that Trooper Kyle Doebrich pulled over the vehicle driven by Hubert Barrett for failing to stop at a marked stop line.

The summary states that, immediately after being pulled over, Barrett informed the trooper that he had a valid license but did not have it with him and that he had a capias for his arrest.

Doebrich asked the passengers where they were coming from and where they were headed and noted track marks indicative of drug use on Barrett’s hands and Emmons’ arm. Upon continued questioning, Doebrich noticed that Barrett’s and Emmons’ stories often conflicted and that both seemed incredibly nervous.

Barrett was asked to step out of the vehicle and was placed in Doebrich’s cruiser. The trooper ran Barrett’s name and Social Security number and found that he had previous felony drug convictions.

Before writing Barrett a citation, Doebrich questioned Emmons and asked if she had anything illegal on her and she said no. However, after Emmons voluntarily handed the officer her purse, he found a needle and placed her under arrest.

A subsequent search of the car revealed a bag of cocaine.

When it considered the case, the trial court granted Emmons’ motion to suppress evidence seized from the traffic stop because it found that the trooper had no reasonable suspicion to ask Barrett to get out of the car, to ask questions unrelated to the stop or to ask Emmons for identification.

The trial court reasoned that Doebrich went beyond what was necessary of a regular traffic stop and “impermissibly prolonged the detention.”

On the state’s appeal, the 1st District court found otherwise.

In an opinion authored by Judge Patrick DeWine, the appellate panel noted that, contrary to the trial court’s findings, it is well settled that, once a vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, police officers may order the driver to exit the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment.

“An officer may also ask the driver and passengers about matters unrelated to the traffic stop itself, so long as those questions do not measurably extend the duration of the stop,” DeWine wrote. “As the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held, mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure.”

Moreover, the court of appeals held that Doebrich had more than enough suspicious circumstances to justify a prolonged stop: nervous individuals whose answers to questions conflicted, a driver with no license and an open warrant for his arrest who stammered and lied about track marks on his hands, and a passenger with dried blood on her sleeve and fresh track marks.

“Trooper Doebrich had plenty of reasons to be suspicious,” DeWine wrote.

And in any case, the appellate panel noted that Emmons’ arrest happened well within the average timeframe of seven to 12 minutes for a traffic stop.

The court of appeals concluded that the trial court erred by failing to examine the reasonableness of Doebrich’s actions and by finding that the traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged.

The judgment of the Hamilton County court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings with Presiding Judge Patrick Fischer and Judge Sylvia Hendon concurring.

Hendon concurred separately, noting that “while I have trouble accepting the trooper’s stated justification for questioning, I am constrained to concur that there was no constitutional deprivation.”

The case is cited State v. Emmons, 2016-Ohio-5384.

[Back]