State v. Camper

• Docket Number: 21AP-685
• Decision Date: 21 December 2023
• Citation: 2023 Ohio 4673
• Parties: State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William C. Camper, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2023-Ohio-4673

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William C. Camper, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21AP-685

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

December 21, 2023

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No 21CR-389)

On brief:

G Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, and Taylor M. Mick, for appellee.

Yeura R. Venters, Franklin County Public Defender, and Timothy E Pierce, for appellant.

Argued:

Taylor M. Mick.

Timothy E. Pierce.

DECISION

JAMISON, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, William C. Camper, appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to his plea of no contest, following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

I. Facts & Procedural History

{¶ 2} By indictment filed January 28, 2021, plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, charged appellant with one count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, in violation of R.C. 2923.16, a felony of the fourth degree, and one count of carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of R.C. 2923.12, a felony of the fourth degree. On June 16, 2021, appellant filed a motion to suppress all evidence resulting from a warrantless search. The state opposed appellant's motion to suppress.

{¶ 3} On August 3, 2021, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Officer Patrick Nance of the Columbus Police Department ("CPD") was the sole witness to testify at the hearing and provided the following testimony. In the early morning hours of August 22, 2020, Officer Nance and several other officers were dispatched to 136 Dakota Avenue in the Franklinton neighborhood of Columbus, Ohio. The call involved a report of someone discharging a firearm into a house. When officers arrived, the suspected shooter barricaded himself inside a house. Several people had gathered on the street to watch the police activity surrounding the barricade situation. A grassy boulevard separates the east and west sides of Dakota Avenue.

{¶ 4} At approximately 2:00 a.m., Officer Nance was sitting in his patrol car on the east side of the street when he heard a "crash on the west side of the street directly across from" him. (Aug. 3, 2021 Tr. at 7-8.) Officer Nance looked toward the noise and saw a vehicle, being operated by appellant, "backing up" with the "bumper * * * hanging off." (Tr. at 8.) Officer Nance determined that appellant had just hit another parked car. Officer Nance then observed appellant hand a "book bag out the window" of the vehicle to an individual subsequently identified as Dusty Owens. (Tr. at 11.) Owens placed the backpack on his back without opening it. Officer Nance's body worn camera recorded Officer Nance telling another officer, "[g]et that book bag. Dude just took that book bag from him." (Tr. at 11.) Officer Nance drove his patrol car across the street while keeping "constant eye contact on Mr. Owens." (Tr. at 8.) Officers present at 136 Dakota Avenue began walking across the street toward the vehicle accident.

{¶ 5} The approaching officers told appellant "to stop," but appellant exited his vehicle and "fled inside the house" at 133 Dakota Avenue. (Tr. at 31.) Owens began walking toward the residence next door to the residence appellant entered. Officer Nance exited his vehicle and approached Owens. "As soon as" Officer Nance walked up to Owens, he "could smell immediately a strong odor of raw marijuana coming from the book bag that [Owens] was wearing." (Tr. at 8, 12.) Officer Nance testified that he was trained to recognize the smell of marijuana and that he had made hundreds of drug-related arrests during his ten-year career in law enforcement.

{¶ 6} When Officer Nance approached Owens he told him, "[g]ive me that book bag." (Tr. at 12.) Owens responded stating "[w]hat," and Officer Nance told him, "[t]ake it off now, take it off. Just take the book bag off. He just handed it to you." (Tr. at 12.) When Owens resisted giving up the backpack, Officer Nance and another officer grabbed Owens and Owens fell to the ground. Officer Nance then took a hold of the backpack and the other officer placed Owens in handcuffs.

{¶ 7} While the backpack remained closed and in Officer Nance's possession, Officer Nance told Owens he "[could] smell there is weed coming off of this bag." (Tr. at 14.) The following exchange then occurred between Officer Nance and Owens:

Excerpt of video was played as follows:

OFFICER NANCE: Why would you take a bag from somebody you don't even -- do you know that guy?

MR. OWENS: He's my friend. I didn't know what -- he just asked me to hold the bag. What do you think is in it?

(Unintelligible).

OFFICER NANCE: You see somebody running from the police, they hand you a bag -

MR. OWENS: I didn't know he was going to run from you all. You got to understand that.

(Tr. at 16.)

{¶ 8} Officer Nance then stepped away from Owens and unzipped the backpack. Officer Nance discovered two baggies containing marijuana and a loaded pistol inside. Officer Nance did not ask Owens or appellant for consent to search the backpack and Officer Nance did not have a warrant authorizing him to search the backpack.

{¶ 9} During Officer Nance's interaction with Owens, other officers were at 133 Dakota Avenue "yelling for [appellant] to come out." (Tr. at 9.) Appellant exited the house and was taken into custody. Appellant asked Officer Nance why he was being arrested, and Officer Nance replied, "[b]ecause you got in an accident and then you handed the bag to this guy and I saw you do it." (Tr. at 17.)

{¶ 10} Officers then transported appellant to the police station, where CPD Detective Christopher Journey interrogated him. Detective Journey informed appellant he would be charged with a felony resulting from the firearm discovered in the backpack. In response, appellant told Detective Journey that he "didn't have those," he "didn't give nobody no book bag," "there wasn't no book bag," and that the officers "should have seen that [appellant] handed a bottle of liquor" to Owens. (Tr. at 36-38.)^[1]

{¶ 11} The trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress on the record at the conclusion of the suppression hearing. The court determined that appellant lacked standing to challenge the search because he "abandoned possession of the backpack." (Tr. at 52.) Following appellant's request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court issued an entry denying the motion to suppress on November 16, 2021. In the entry, the court expressly found Officer Nance's testimony credible and concluded that appellant abandoned the backpack when he "gave it to Mr. Owens, fled the scene of the vehicle accident, * * * entered 133 Dakota Ave," and "denied ever having the black backpack later during a custodial interview." (Nov. 16, 2021 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 5-6.) The court further determined that Officer Nance had probable cause to search the backpack once he "positively smelled the odor of raw marijuana emanating from the bag." (Findings of Fact and Conclustions of Law at 9.) The court also concluded that, even if Officer Nance's warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the evidence discovered during the search should not be suppressed.

{¶ 12} On November 18, 2021, appellant pled no contest to the charges in the indictment. The court accepted appellant's no contest plea and proceeded immediately to sentencing. The court sentenced appellant to a two-year term of community control. On November 23, 2021, the trial court issued a judgment entry finding appellant guilty of the charges and memorializing appellant's convictions and sentence.

II. Assignments of Error

{¶ 13} Appellant appeals, assigning the following two assignments of error for our review:

[1.] Because the warrantless search of Appellant's backpack violated his right of privacy the lower court should have granted his motion to suppress. All evidence obtained as a result should have been excluded pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution, R.C. 2933.21, R.C. 2933.22, Crim. R. 41, and Franklin County Loc. R. 4.12.

[2.] The lower court erred when it issued its verdict of guilty outside Appellant's physical presence in violation of his Right to Due Process of Law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Due Course of Law provisions of Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution, and Crim. R. 43(A).

III. First Assignment of Error - Motion to Suppress

{¶ 14} Appellant's first assignment of error asserts the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. Appellant contends that he had standing to challenge the search of the backpack and that Officer Nance's warrantless search of the backpack was unconstitutional.

{¶ 15} Appellate review of a ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368, 2018-Ohio-201, ¶ 14, citing State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. Therefore, an appellate court's standard of review of a trial court's decision denying a motion to suppress is twofold. State v. Pilgrim, 184 Ohio App.3d 675, 2009-Ohio-5357, ¶ 13 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Reedy, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-501, 2006-Ohio-1212, ¶ 5.

{¶ 16} When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve factual questions and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. Burnside ...