Youngstown Daily Legal News

Evidence shouldn’t have been suppressed after officer found drugs, gun during traffic stop

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 26, 2013

According to a recent 10th District Court of Appeals ruling, a firearm and controlled substances found during the unwarranted search of a man’s car were improperly suppressed at his trial.

The three-judge appellate panel found the arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion of danger when he searched Darrian Cordell’s car as part of a traffic stop.

The details of the case state that Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Matthew Himes started following Cordell around 2 a.m. on Nov. 25, 2009 with the intent to stop him for following another car too closely.

Before Himes could activate his lights, Cordell turned and went over two speed bumps at “an excessive speed” before stopping at a private residence.

Himes activated his pursuit lights and saw Cordell unexpectedly get out of his car shortly after Himes exited the cruiser.

“Trooper Himes abandoned his usual procedure of approaching the stopped vehicle to interview the driver while standing beside the vehicle, because (Cordell’s) behavior alerted Trooper Himes that an unusual and possibly unsafe situation could develop,” 10th District John Connor wrote in his opinion for the court.

Cordell did not have his I.D. with him and Himes later testified he appeared “extremely nervous” and avoided eye contact.

Himes placed Cordell in the cruiser while verifying that he had a valid driver’s license.

Himes placed Cordell’s passenger in the back of his cruiser and searched the vehicle.

He first saw a semi-automatic piston in plain view under the driver’s seat and then found Oxycodone and cocaine in the glove compartment.

Cordell was indicted on drug possession and firearm charges. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was unconstitutional.

At a hearing, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas held that Cordell was not under arrest at the time of the search but applied search rules outlined in Arizona v. Gant, which stated that the search of a passenger compartment after the occupant’s arrest is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The common pleas court found the search violated Cordell’s rights and granted his motion for suppression.

The state appealed the decision to the 10th District, claiming the trial court should have applied the rules outlined in Terry v. Ohio, granting officers search rights when they believe a situation is dangerous.

The three-judge appellate panel found the trial court determined Cordell was not under arrest during the search and, therefore, should have applied the Terry case.

It maintained that Himes had to show he believed searching the car was in the best interest of his safety.

The judges found Himes was suspicious because of the time, Cordell’s erratic driving, and his choice to exit the vehicle.

“Trooper Himes observed that this was highly unusual in a traffic stop, and that in fact the vast majority of stopped motorists who do exit the vehicle do so simply as a precursor to immediately fleeing the scene,” Connor stated.

The judges held that this behavior coupled with Cordell’s unusual level of nervousness justified Himes’ suspicion.

“We find that, based upon the trial court’s conclusion that appellee was not under arrest, and this applying the correct standard based upon (Michigan v. Long) and Terry to the facts described at the suppression hearing, the protective search of appellee’s vehicle by Trooper Himes was not illegal and suppression of the evidence obtained thereby was not warranted,” Connor continued.

Judge Julia Dorrian concurred.

In a separate opinion, Judge Gary Tyack said he concurred with regard to the firearm because Himes testified that it was in plain sight.

However, he held that the officer would have placed Cordell under arrest after finding the weapon and the remaining search was improper.

“I would overturn the suppression of the search and seizure of the firearms, but not the seizure of the controlled substances,” Tyack wrote.

The judges reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded for further proceedings.

The case is cited State v. Cordell, 2013-Ohio-3009.

[Back]