State v. Jenkins , 2010 Ohio 5943 ( 2010 )

[Cite as State v. Jenkins, 2010-Ohio-5943.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
UNION COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 14-10-10
v.
ANTHONY K. JENKINS, II, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Marysville Municipal Court
Trial Court No. TRD 1000687
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: December 6, 2010
APPEARANCES:
Jeffery A. Linn, II for Appellant
Anthony W. Eufinger for Appellee
Case No. 14-10-10
ROGERS, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Anthony K. Jenkins, II, appeals the judgment
of the Marysville Municipal Court convicting him of driving while under
suspension pursuant to R.C. 4510.14. On appeal, Jenkins argues that the trial
court erred in overruling his motion to suppress, claiming that the police officer
lacked probable cause to justify the stop of his vehicle. Finding that the police
officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion that Jenkins was driving under a
suspended license and was not within his limited driving privileges, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
{¶2} In February 2010, Jenkins was cited for one count of driving while
under suspension for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol
(hereinafter “OVI”) in violation of R.C. 4510.11(A). The citation specified that
the “suspension type” was “OVI.” Thereafter, Jenkins entered a plea of not guilty.
{¶3} In April 2010, Jenkins filed a motion to suppress all evidence related
to the traffic stop on the basis that the police officer did not have reasonable
articulable suspicion to justify the traffic stop. Thereafter, a hearing was held on
the motion to suppress, at which the following testimony was heard.
{¶4} Officer Robert Bartholomew of the City of Marysville Police
Department testified that, on Sunday, February 21, 2010, at approximately 6:18
p.m., he was stationed in his patrol cruiser on Watkins Road in Marysville, Union
-2-
Case No. 14-10-10
County; that he observed a northbound vehicle approaching him on Watkins Road;
that his visual estimation of the vehicle’s speed was forty-five m.p.h.; that the
speed limit on that stretch of the road was thirty-five m.p.h.; that he did not check
the speed using radar; that he entered the license plate into his LEADS system and
observed that the owner of the vehicle had a suspended license; that he pulled onto
Watkins Road behind the vehicle, and confirmed the suspended license status with
the dispatcher; that the dispatcher also informed him that there were limited
driving privileges associated with the suspended license, but did not explain the
times or dates of the limitations; that the vehicle entered State Route 33, and he
followed the vehicle, drove side-by-side with the vehicle, and observed that the
driver, Jenkins, matched the physical description of the owner relayed to him by
the dispatcher; that there was also a passenger in the vehicle; that, due to the
circumstances, he believed Jenkins was not driving within his privileges; that he
initiated a stop of the vehicle; that he asked Jenkins where he was going, and
Jenkins replied that he was going to the movies and that this was not covered by
his limited driving privileges; that, prior to the stop, he did not know where
Jenkins’ place of employment was or what his hours of employment were; that he
did not observe Jenkins leaving any place unlikely to be permitted by limited
driving privileges, such as a bar; that he did not include the fact that it was the
weekend as a factor causing him to make the stop in his report; that he knew
-3-
Case No. 14-10-10
Jenkins’ address from the LEADS report, and determined that he was traveling
away from his residence; that he stopped Jenkins approximately one or two miles
away from where he first observed Jenkins’ vehicle; and, that it would not have
been prudent for him to pull Jenkins over before he did because there was not a
safe area to stop until they were on State Route 33, and because he could not
identify the driver as the owner of the vehicle until they were both travelling on
State Route 33.
{¶5} At the close of evidence, the trial court denied Jenkins’ motion to
suppress, stating from the bench that the police officer had reasonable articulable
suspicion to stop the vehicle based on the observed speeding violation as well as
the information regarding Jenkins’ license suspension. Thereafter, Jenkins
withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of no contest to driving while
under OVI suspension pursuant to R.C. 4510.14.1 The trial court then found
Jenkins guilty and sentenced him to a thirty-day jail term, with twenty-seven days
suspended on the condition of successful completion of three years of probation,
and ordered him to pay a $600 fine, with $300 deferred on the condition of
successful completion of three years of probation.
1
We note that the Judgment Entry provided that “this cause came on for hearing/trial upon the charge of
violation of R.C./Ord.# 4510.45 entitled SUSP/REV OVI” (Apr. 2010 Judgment Entry, p. 1). However,
the trial court’s citation to R.C. 4510.45 appears to be a typographical error, as this code section regards
certification of immobilizing and disabling devices.
-4-
Case No. 14-10-10
Assignment of Error No. I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S
MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE THE OFFICER
LACKED PROBABLE CAUSE TO JUSTIFY A STOP OF
APPELLANT’S VEHICLE FOR SPEEDING, VIOLATING
APPELANT’S [SIC] RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY THE
FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND COMPARABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
Assignment of Error No. II
DESPITE THE TRIAL COURT’S ANALYSIS REGARDING
THE SPEED, OFFICER BARTHOLOMEW WAS NOT
JUSTIFIED IN STOPPING APPELLANT’S VEHICLE FOR
SUSPICION OF DRIVING UNDER SUSPENSION BECAUSE
THE OFFICER WAS AWARE THAT APPELLANT
POSSESSED PRIVILEGES, AND THEREFORE, THE STOP
VIOLATED APPELLANT’S RIGHTS AS GUARANTEED BY
THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO
THE UNITED STATES CONSTIUTION [SIC] AND
COMPARABLE PROVISIONS OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION.
{¶6} Due to the nature of Jenkins’ arguments, we elect to address his
assignments of error together.
Assignments of Error Nos. I and II
{¶7} In his first and second assignments of error, Jenkins argues that the
trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop.
Specifically, in his first assignment of error, Jenkins contends that the police
officer lacked probable cause to justify the stop of the vehicle for speeding. In his
second assignment of error, Jenkins specifically contends that the police officer
-5-
Case No. 14-10-10
lacked probable cause to justify the stop of the vehicle on suspicion of driving
under suspension because the officer was aware that he had some driving
privileges, albeit limited.
{¶8} “Appellate review of a decision on a motion to suppress evidence
presents mixed questions of law and fact.” State v. Dudli, 3d Dist. No. 3-05-13,
2006-Ohio-601, ¶12, citing United States v. Martinez (C.A.11, 1992), 949 F.2d
1117. The trial court serves as the trier of fact and is the primary judge of the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence presented.
State v. Johnson (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 847, 850. Therefore, when an appellate
court reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, it must accept the trial
court's findings of facts so long as they are supported by competent, credible
evidence. State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71, 2006-Ohio-3665, ¶100, citing State
v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20. The appellate court must then review the
application of the law to the facts de novo. Roberts, supra, citing State v.
Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶8.
{¶9} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and
seizures. Neither the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution nor
Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution explicitly provides that violations of
its provisions against unlawful searches and seizures will result in the suppression
-6-
Case No. 14-10-10
of evidence obtained as a result of such violation, but the United States Supreme
Court has held that the exclusion of evidence is an essential part of the Fourth
Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643, 649; Weeks v. United States
(1914), 232 U.S. 383, 394. The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to
remove the incentive to violate the Fourth Amendment and thereby deter police
from unlawful conduct. State v. Jones, 88 Ohio St.3d 430, 434, 2000-Ohio-374,
overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323, 2003-Ohio-
3931.
{¶10} At a suppression hearing, the State bears the burden of establishing
that a warrantless search and seizure falls within one of the exceptions to the
warrant requirement, Xenia v. Wallace (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 216, paragraph two
of the syllabus; State v. Kessler (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 204, 207, and that it meets
Fourth Amendment standards of reasonableness. Maumee v. Weisner, 87 Ohio
St.3d 295, 297, 1999-Ohio-68, citing 5 LaFave, Search and Seizure (3 Ed.1996),
Section 11.2(b).
{¶11} When a law enforcement officer accosts an individual and restricts
his freedom of movement, the Fourth Amendment is implicated. State v.
Stephenson, 3d Dist. No. 14-04-08, 2004-Ohio-5102, ¶16, citing Terry v. Ohio
(1968), 392 U.S. 1. Generally, in order for a law enforcement officer to conduct a
warrantless search, he must possess probable cause, which means that “‘there is a
-7-
Case No. 14-10-10
fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular
place.’” State v. Carlson (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 600, quoting Illinois v.
Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 214. However, even where probable cause is lacking,
it is well-established that a law enforcement officer may temporarily detain an
individual where he has a reasonable articulable suspicion that the individual is
engaging in criminal activity. State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 179, citing
Terry, 392 U.S. at 21.
{¶12} Reasonable articulable suspicion is “‘specific and articulable facts
which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant
the intrusion.’” Stephenson, 2004-Ohio-5102, at ¶16, quoting Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d
at 178. In forming reasonable articulable suspicion, law enforcement officers may
“draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from
and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that ‘might
well elude an untrained person.’” United States v. Arvizu (2002), 534 U.S. 266,
273, quoting United States v. Cortez (1981), 449 U.S. 411, 417-418. Further, an
officer who witnesses a traffic violation possesses probable cause, and a
reasonable articulable suspicion, to conduct a traffic stop. Id. Stephenson, 2004-
Ohio-5102, at ¶17.
{¶13} R.C. 4510.14 governs the offense of driving while under OVI
suspension and provides, in pertinent part:
-8-
Case No. 14-10-10
(A) No person whose driver’s or commercial driver’s license or
permit or nonresident operating privilege has been suspended
under section 4511.19, 4511.191, or 4511.196 of the Revised Code
or under section 4510.07 of the Revised Code for a conviction of
a violation of a municipal OVI ordinance shall operate any
motor vehicle upon the public roads or highways within this
state during the period of the suspension.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of driving under OVI
suspension. The court shall sentence the offender under Chapter
2929. of the Revised Code, subject to the differences authorized
or required by this section.
{¶14} In conjunction with R.C. 4510.11, Ohio’s statute governing general
offenses of driving while under suspension, this Court has previously held that a
police officer who runs a check of a license plate and discovers that the vehicle’s
owner’s license is under suspension has a reasonable articulable suspicion to make
a valid investigatory stop. State v. Cromes, 3d Dist. No. 17-06-07, 2006-Ohio-
6924, ¶32, citing Rocky River v. Saleh (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 313, 327.
{¶15} Additionally, in State v. Mack, 9th Dist. No. 24328, 2009-Ohio-
1056, the Ninth District Court of Appeals has examined a similar situation where
the police officer knew the owner of the vehicle had a suspended license with
limited driving privileges, but did not have any specific information concerning
when, where, and for what purpose the driver was permitted to operate her vehicle.
The Court of Appeals found that the drivers’ suspended license combined with the
fact that the stop took place at 2:00 a.m. demonstrated the officer had a reasonable
articulable suspicion for an investigatory stop of the vehicle.
-9-
Case No. 14-10-10
{¶16} The Fourth Appellate District, in State v. Elliot, 4th Dist. No.
08CA50, 2009-Ohio-6006, also examined a similar situation where a police officer
observed a vehicle leaving a bar parking lot at approximately 1:00 a.m. The
Fourth District found that “[a] police officer has a constitutionally legitimate basis
to stop a vehicle when: 1) the officer learns that the registered owner of the vehicle
has a suspended license with limited driving privileges; and 2) both the late hour
when the driver is operating the vehicle and the location from which the vehicle is
driven provide a reasonable inference that the driver may not be operating the
vehicle within the scope of his limited driving privileges.” 2009-Ohio-6006, at ¶2.
{¶17} The situation sub judice differs from Mack and Elliot, supra, because
Jenkins was observed operating his vehicle during the early evening hours as
opposed to during the very late night or very early morning hours. Additionally,
the situation differs from Elliot in that Jenkins was not observed leaving a bar or
some other type of venue unlikely to be permitted by limited driving privileges.
Nevertheless, we find applicable the more general findings of Elliot concerning
the relevancy of the hour during which the driver is operating his vehicle, and the
location from which the vehicle is driven. Here, Officer Bartholomew testified
that he observed Jenkins operating his vehicle at 6:18 p.m. on a Sunday evening;
that he learned through dispatch that Jenkins’ license was suspended, but that he
had limited driving privileges; that Jenkins had a passenger in his vehicle; and,
-10-
Case No. 14-10-10
that Jenkins was traveling away from his address. We find that, from the totality
of these circumstances, Officer Bartholomew had a reasonable articulable
suspicion that Jenkins may not have been driving within his limited privileges and
was permitted to stop the vehicle to investigate further.
{¶18} Accordingly, we overrule Jenkins’ second assignment of error.
{¶19} Further, as we have found that the stop of the vehicle was justified
on the grounds at issue in Jenkins’ second assignment of error, we need not
determine whether the stop was also permitted on the grounds that Officer
Bartholomew visually estimated Jenkins to be traveling at a speed in excess of the
speed limit. Thus, we find Jenkins’ first assignment of error to be moot and
decline to address it. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
{¶20} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein, in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI, P.J. and PRESTON, J., concur.
/jlr
-11-