State v. Brown

• Decision Date: 23 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2014–0104.,2014–0104.
• Citation: 143 Ohio St.3d 444,39 N.E.3d 496,2015 Ohio 2438
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. BROWN, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

143 Ohio St.3d 444

39 N.E.3d 496

2015 Ohio 2438

The STATE of Ohio, Appellant,

v.BROWN, Appellee.

No. 2014–0104.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Feb. 3, 2015.

Decided June 23, 2015.

Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas A. Matuszak and David T. Harold, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant.

Lawrence A. Gold, for appellee.

The Law Office of Robert L. Berry, L.L.C., and Robert L. Berry, urging reversal for amicus curiae Buckeye State Sheriffs Association.

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging reversal for amicus curiae Lucas County Prosecutor Julia R. Bates.

Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew T. French, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging reversal for amicus curiae Office of the Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General Michael DeWine.

Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

Carrie Wood, Assistant State Public Defender, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Office of the Ohio Public Defender.

O'DONNELL, J.

{¶ 1} The state of Ohio appeals from a judgment of the Sixth District Court of Appeals that reversed Terence Brown's conviction for possession of oxycodone and held that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence obtained following a traffic stop for a marked lane violation made by a township police officer who acted without statutory jurisdiction. The appellate court concluded that the traffic stop was unreasonable pursuant to Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution because the township officer lacked statutory authority to make a stop for a marked lane violation on an interstate highway, and it suppressed the evidence obtained from the search of Brown's vehicle.

{¶ 2} It is undisputed that the township police officer in this case exercised law-enforcement powers not granted to township police officers by the General Assembly; thus, because the officer acted without authority to stop Brown for a minor misdemeanor traffic offense on an interstate highway, the traffic stop, the arrest, and the search were unreasonable and violated Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 4} On the evening of March 16, 2011, a Lake Township patrol officer and canine handler, Kelly Clark, pulled from the median on Interstate 280 into the passing lane and observed the passenger-side tires of a Chevy Impala momentarily cross the solid white fog line for a distance of approximately 100 feet. Clark pulled her police vehicle alongside the Impala and observed that the driver, Terence Brown, was staring directly ahead and did not look over at her. Clark decided to stop Brown for leaving the lane of travel approximately two and one half miles from where the violation occurred. It is undisputed that Clark lacked authority to stop a motorist for a marked lane violation on an interstate highway.

{¶ 5} Brown had a suspended driver's license and an active felony warrant in Michigan. The record here, however, does not disclose whether Officer Clark was aware of those facts when she walked her drug dog around the Impala, leading to the discovery of 120 oxycodone tablets and a baggie of marijuana.

{¶ 6} The state thereafter indicted Brown for aggravated possession of drugs. Brown filed a motion to suppress, but the court denied it, finding that Clark had probable cause to stop Brown for a marked lane violation. Brown subsequently pleaded no contest to aggravated possession of drugs, and the trial court sentenced him to a mandatory term of three years in prison.

{¶ 7} Brown appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeals, asserting that because Clark lacked statutory authority to stop him for a marked lane violation on an interstate highway, the stop and the subsequent arrest and search violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. The appellate court determined that the stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment, because Clark had probable cause to believe Brown had committed a misdemeanor in her presence. However, the court held that the stop was unreasonable and violated the Ohio Constitution because the marked lane violation occurred outside Clark's territorial jurisdiction and there were no extenuating circumstances that called for the township police officer to initiate the extraterritorial stop. Concluding that the trial court should have suppressed the drug evidence, the appellate court reversed Brown's conviction.

{¶ 8} We accepted the state's discretionary appeal on the following proposition of law: "A violation of R.C. 4513.39 does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation under Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore, the exclusionary rule cannot be invoked to suppress the fruits of any such statutory violation." 138 Ohio St.3d 1467, 2014-Ohio-1674, 6 N.E.3d 1204.

The State's Contentions

{¶ 9} The state argues that the prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures set forth in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution are nearly identical and should be read in harmony. It further relies on our decision in State v. Jones, 121 Ohio St.3d 103, 2009-Ohio-316, 902 N.E.2d 464, for the proposition that a search or seizure outside an officer's territorial jurisdiction does not violate the Fourth Amendment, provided that the officer has probable cause, and it urges us to hold that Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution affords no greater protection than that afforded by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Finally, the state contends that the violation of a statute does not, by itself, rise to a constitutional violation requiring suppression of evidence, and therefore the fact that a statute provides no remedy for its violation indicates a policy decision by the legislative branch of government that should not be disturbed by the judicial branch.

Brown's Contentions

{¶ 10} Brown contends that the township officer lacked statutory authority to stop any motorist on an interstate highway for a marked lane violation. Claiming that the Ohio Constitution is a document of independent force, he notes that in determining whether an extraterritorial stop violates the Ohio Constitution, we have considered the totality of the circumstances and balanced the government's interests against the privacy right of the accused to decide whether the stop was reasonable. In this case, he urges that the violation of the statute rose to a constitutional infringement, and therefore the proper remedy is for the court to exclude the drug evidence.

{¶ 11} Accordingly, the issue presented on this appeal is whether a traffic stop made without statutory jurisdiction or authority violates the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures afforded by Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution.

Extraterritorial Arrests

Common Law

{¶ 12} At common law, police officers had no authority to make warrantless arrests outside the jurisdiction of the political entity that appointed them to office; unless they were in hot pursuit of a suspected felon fleeing that jurisdiction, officers making an extraterritorial arrest acted outside their official capacity and were therefore treated as private citizens. See, e.g., Fairborn v. Munkus, 28 Ohio St.2d 207, 209, 277 N.E.2d 227 (1971) ; State v. Zdovc, 106 Ohio App. 481, 485–486, 151 N.E.2d 672 (8th Dist.1958) ; State v. Eriksen, 172 Wash.2d 506, 259 P.3d 1079 (2011), ¶ 8–9; Commonwealth v. Limone, 460 Mass. 834, 837, 957 N.E.2d 225 (2011) ; Bost v. State, 406 Md. 341, 351, 958 A.2d 356 (2008), fn. 6; People v. Lahr, 147 Ill.2d 379, 382, 168 Ill.Dec. 139, 589 N.E.2d 539 (1992) ; State v. Stahl, 838 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Wyo.1992) ; Perry v. State, 303 Ark. 100, 102, 794 S.W.2d 141 (1990) ; People v. Hamilton, 666 P.2d 152, 154 (Colo.1983) ; 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, Section 5.1(b) at 18–19 (5th Ed.2012) ; 4 Bergman & Duncan, Wharton's Criminal Procedure, Section 23:23, at 23–79 to 23–80 (14th Ed.2010).

Statutory Law

{¶ 13} The General Assembly codified this common law rule in Ohio as early as 1837, when it enacted an act "[d]efining the powers and duties of Justices of the Peace and Constables, in Criminal Cases," 35 Ohio Laws 87, 91, which authorized constables to apprehend felons and disturbers of the peace without a warrant "within their respective counties." And in 1869, when the General Assembly enacted R.S. 7129, 66 Ohio Laws 287, 291, as part of the act establishing the Ohio Code of Criminal Procedure, it retained the common law rule limiting an officer's authority to make a warrantless arrest to the geographical boundaries of the political subdivision employing the officer. Cincinnati v. Alexander, 54 Ohio St.2d 248, 252, 375 N.E.2d 1241 (1978) ( "the General Assembly intended no devolution of arrest power outside the respective political subdivisions relating to the enumerated officers in the enactment of [R.S. 7129]").

{¶ 14} The General Assembly subsequently recodified R.S. 7129, and the current version, R.C. 2935.03(A)(1), now provides:

A sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, deputy marshal, municipal police officer, township constable, [or] police officer of a township or joint police district * * * shall arrest and detain, until a warrant can be obtained, a person found violating, within the limits of the political subdivision * * * in which the peace officer is

...