State v. Armstead
| Decision Date | 04 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 26640.,26640. |
| Citation | 50 N.E.3d 1073 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellant v. Glen D. ARMSTEAD, Jr., Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Christina E. Mahy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Dayton, OH, Attorney for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Tina M. McFall, Assistant Public Defender, Dayton, OH, Attorney for Defendant–Appellee.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant State of Ohio appeals a decision of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, sustaining the motion to suppress of defendant-appellee Glen D. Armstead, Jr. The trial court issued its decision sustaining Armstead's motion to suppress on March 26, 2015. The State filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court on March 30, 2015.
{¶ 2} The incident which forms the basis of the instant appeal occurred around noon on January 13, 2014, when Dayton Police Detective Dustin J. Phillips and his partner, Officer Jason Rhodes, were part of a task force which patrolled on the west side of Dayton, Ohio, specifically including properties owned by Greater Dayton Premier Management (GDPM). Det. Phillips and his partner were in a marked police cruiser, and both men were wearing the uniform of the day.
{¶ 3} Upon observing a vehicle fail to signal a turn, Det. Phillips and his partner stopped the vehicle behind a store located behind the northwest corner of West Third Street and James H. McGee Boulevard. After stopping the vehicle, the officers observed that it contained only two individuals, the driver and a passenger in the front seat. While Officer Rhodes spoke with the driver, Det. Phillips made contact with a male sitting in the front passenger seat of the vehicle. Det. Phillips obtained the passenger's identification card and checked his information on the computer located in the police cruiser. The passenger, identified as the defendant, Armstead, did not have any warrants for his arrest. Det. Phillips' computer check, however, established that Armstead was the subject of a valid “suspect locator hit.”
{¶ 4} Det. Phillips testified that a “suspect locator hit” informs an investigating officer that another detective wants to speak with the suspect regarding another case. The particular suspect locator hit discovered by Det. Phillips indicated that Detective Jonathan Seiter wanted a sample of Armstead's DNA.
{¶ 5} After receiving the information regarding the suspect locator hit, Det. Phillips directed Armstead to exit the vehicle. Armstead complied with Det. Phillips' request and got out of the vehicle. Det. Phillips testified that he detected the strong odor of burnt marijuana when Armstead got out of the vehicle. Det. Phillips conducted a Terry pat down of Armstead, but did not find any weapons or contraband on or about his person. Det. Phillips did not draw his weapon nor did he handcuff Armstead.
{¶ 6} Det. Phillips testified that at this point, Armstead was free to go, but Armstead was not informed of this fact. Det. Phillips informed Armstead that he needed to come with him in order to speak with another detective at police headquarters. Det. Phillips then placed Armstead in the rear of his locked police cruiser and attempted to contact Det. Seiter.1 Det. Phillips testified that Armstead was not under arrest at this time, nor did he have probable cause to request an arrest warrant for Armstead. Significantly, Det. Phillips acknowledged that had Armstead refused to go to the Safety Building, he could not have compelled him to do so. Nevertheless, he was already in custody in a locked cruiser. No evidence was adduced that Armstead consented to Det. Phillips' request to go to the Safety Building to speak with Det. Seiter. Additionally, Det. Phillips testified that he was not aware of the reason why Det. Seiter wanted to speak with Armstead, beyond a request for a DNA sample.
{¶ 7} Det. Phillips subsequently informed Det. Seiter that he had Armstead in custody and would be transporting him to the Safety Building for questioning. Det. Seiter thereafter went to a judge in order to get a warrant to collect Armstead's DNA.
Det. Seiter's Investigation/Basis for “Suspect Locator Hit ”
{¶ 8} In December of 2012, Det. Seiter was assigned to investigate a “hit and run.” At the site of the incident, police discovered an automobile they believed to be involved in the offense. The vehicle was found to be registered to a female. However, inside the vehicle, police found mail bearing Armstead's name and address. Moreover, Det. Seiter testified at the suppression hearing that the police had received an anonymous tip that Armstead was the driver of the vehicle involved in the “hit and run.”
{¶ 9} Det. Seiter testified that he traveled to the address listed on Armstead's mail which was found in the involved vehicle in 2012. Det. Seiter testified that he tried to locate Armstead at the listed address for questioning, but he did not attempt to obtain an arrest warrant. Det. Seiter was unable to locate Armstead at the time of the initial investigation into the “hit and run.” Det. Seiter, therefore, placed a “suspect locator hit” on Armstead's file that was later found and acted upon by Det. Phillips.
{¶ 10} Upon arriving at the Safety Building, Det. Phillips and Officer Rhodes escorted Armstead to an interview room on the second floor. Once Armstead was placed in the interview room, Det. Phillips and Officer Rhodes waited just outside the door, never leaving him unattended. Shortly thereafter, Det. Seiter, accompanied by Det. Donaldson, entered the interview room in order to speak with Armstead. Det. Phillips and Officer Rhodes remained outside the room for the entire duration of the questioning. At no point was Armstead informed that he was free to leave.
{¶ 11} Prior to asking any questions, Det. Seiter testified that he had Armstead read his Miranda rights and put his initials next to each right. After reading his waiver of rights, Armstead asked to speak to an attorney. Det. Seiter permitted Armstead to place a call on his own cell phone. After Armstead appeared to end his cell phone conversation, Det. Seiter reentered the interview room and asked him “What are we going to do?” Armstead indicated to Det. Seiter that he was willing to talk. Armstead signed a pre-interview form, and Det. Seiter began asking questions. After approximately five questions asked by Det. Seiter, Armstead indicated that he wanted to stop the interview. Det. Seiter ended the interview, and Det. Phillips drove Armstead to the bus stop hub in downtown Dayton, Ohio.
{¶ 12} On January 21, 2015, Armstead was indicted for one count of failure to stop after an accident where said accident resulted in serious harm or death to a person, in violation of R.C. 4549.02(A), a felony of the fifth degree. At his arraignment on February 3, 2015, Armstead stood mute, and the trial court entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf.
{¶ 13} On February 10, 2015, Armstead filed a motion to suppress the statement he made to Det. Seiter during the interview held on January 13, 2015, regarding his involvement in a hit and run which occurred on December 18, 2012. In his motion, Armstead alleged that his statements were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Armstead specifically argued that his statements were made as a result of an unlawful arrest in violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.
{¶ 14} A hearing was held on Armstead's motion to suppress on March 23, 2015. Thereafter, on March 26, 2015, the trial court issued a decision sustaining Armstead's motion to suppress. The trial court found that Armstead's statements were derived from an illegal seizure in derogation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Specifically, the trial court made the following conclusions of law:
* * * The Defendant was detained without an arrest warrant having been obtained by the police. The Defendant was taken in for questioning without being advised that he was free to go. [The Defendant] did not, by act of free will, choose to go downtown for a meeting with the Detective. There was a seizure here and this seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The statements must be excluded.
{¶ 15} It is from this judgment that the State now appeals.
{¶ 16} The State's sole assignment of error is as follows:
{¶ 17} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING ARMSTEAD'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS.”
{¶ 18} In its sole assignment, the State contends that the trial court erred when it sustained Armstead's motion to suppress. Initially, the State argues that Armstead's interaction with the police immediately following the traffic stop was consensual. The State also asserts that even if Armstead was arrested, the warrantless arrest occurred in a public place and was supported by probable cause. Therefore, the State asserts that Armstead's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The State further argues that if Armstead was arrested, the arrest did not violate R.C. 2935.04. However, if a violation of R.C. 2935.04 did occur, the State argues that the exclusionary rule does not apply, and Armstead's subsequent statements to Det. Seiter should not have been suppressed. Lastly, the State contends that even if Armstead was unlawfully arrested, his statements made to Det. Seiter were “attenuated from the initial arrest, and several intervening acts * * * purged the taint of the initial arrest.”
{¶ 19} As this Court has previously noted:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ferguson
... ... Although Ferguson was transported to the police station in a cruiser and was taken to an interview room through a non-public entry, the officers' conduct toward Ferguson was not the functional equivalent of placing Ferguson under arrest. Contrast State v. Armstead , 2015-Ohio-5010, 50 N.E.3d 1073 (2d Dist.) (affirming the suppression of statements made to the police after the defendant, based on a "suspect locator hit," was removed from a stopped vehicle, patted down, placed in a cruiser, and taken to the station, without probable cause). { 72} Although ... ...
-
State v. Jordan
... ... at 427, 96 S.Ct. 820.{20} As stated by State v. Taylor , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-7, 2019-Ohio-2018, 2019 WL 2226046, 14, the Second District's position in VanNoy is a minority position. There is even dispute within the Second District as to VanNoy's viability. See State v. Armstead , 2d Dist. Montgomery, 2015-Ohio-5010, 50 N.E.3d 1073, 40 (Welbaum, J., dissenting) (explaining that Heston has been discredited by Watson and Brown , and exigent circumstances or an undue delay requirement cannot be imposed on warrantless arrests made with probable cause). {21} This court follows ... ...
-
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Feder
... ... Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156, 464 N.E.2d 538 (1984). { 9} When determining whether a state court has personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation the court is obligated to engage in a two-step analysis. First, the court must determine ... ...