State v. Goodpasture
| Docket Number | C. A. 29743 |
| Decision Date | 09 November 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 Ohio 4060 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Appellant v. MICHAEL JAMES GOODPASTURE Appellee |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court Trial CourtCase No 2022 CR 3069
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Attorney for Appellant
JOHN C. CUNNINGHAM, Attorney for Appellee
{¶ 1}Appellant the State of Ohio appeals from a decision of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court which sustained appelleeMichael James Goodpasture's motion to suppress.For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and the case will be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
{¶ 2} Goodpasture was indicted on November 18, 2022, by a Montgomery County grand jury on one count of having a weapon while under disability (prior offense of violence), in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree; one count of having a weapon while under disability (prior drug conviction), in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a felony of the third degree; and one count of improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle (loaded/no license), in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B), a felony of the fourth degree.
{¶ 3} On January 23, 2023, Goodpasture filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search and seizure, including statements made in violation of Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694(1966).A hearing on the motion was held on February 3, 2023.Prior to presenting evidence at the hearing, Goodpasture narrowed the motion to challenge only the warrantless seizure and not the alleged Miranda violation.
{¶ 4} At the hearing, the State presented the testimony of Officer Riley Brown, a police officer with the City of Dayton for approximately four years, along with a video recording from Officer Brown's police cruiser and body camera footage from the officer who Mirandized Goodpasture.Officer Brown testified that on July 1, 2022, he was driving a marked cruiser and wearing his police-issued uniform.Shortly after midnight, Officer Brown and his partner, Officer John Rice, were in the area of Nassau Street and Clover Street in the City of Dayton.
{¶ 5} Officer Brown saw a white Chevy Malibu driving toward their police cruiser when it quickly pulled to the curb and parked.He saw the driver, later identified as Goodpasture, get out of the car and walk away from the police cruiser while repeatedly looking back at the cruiser and then at the ground.It appeared to Officer Brown that Goodpasture was attempting to put a distance between himself and the officers.Goodpasture was the only occupant of the vehicle.
{¶ 6} Officer Brown stated that when he drove by Goodpasture's car after Goodpasture had already gotten out, he could tell, based on his training and experience, that the window tint was excessive.Officer Brown explained that the legal limit for window tint in Ohio is 50 percent, but Goodpasture's car was measured to have an illegal 5 percent window tint.
{¶ 7} Officer Brown saw Goodpasture turn down an alley, so the officers followed him.When Goodpasture turned into a backyard where there were several vacant garages, the officers lost sight of him.The officers then circled back around the block to where Goodpasture had left his car.
{¶ 8} Officer Brown approached Goodpasture's parked car to look through the window.At that time, it was approximately 12:25 a.m. and dark outside.However, using his flashlight, Officer Brown was able to see a purple handgun sitting on the center console armrest.After observing the gun, the officers drove back into the alley to locate Goodpasture but were unsuccessful.The officers returned to the street and saw Goodpasture com ing out of the front of a house and walking toward his car.The officers made a U-turn and stopped Goodpasture.
{¶ 9} Upon stopping Goodpasture, Officer Rice obtained his information and learned that Goodpasture was a convicted felon, meaning that he was prohibited from possessing a firearm.Goodpasture claimed that the firearm and the car belonged to his fiancée.His fiancée came outside during the investigation, but Officer Brown did not speak with her.
{¶ 10} Goodpasture testified in his own defense.Goodpasture stated that he was 40 years old and had lived in Dayton all his life.He explained that he worked from home doing storage auctions and some tattoo work.On July 1, 2022, he had just finished packing his truck and his fiancée's car because they planned to go to the Dixie Strip Flea Market that weekend.He parked his fiancé's car near the corner of Nassau on Clover Street behind his house.
{¶ 11} After stepping out of the car, he saw the police cruiser stop at the stop sign and then go through the intersection.He noticed that it slowed down as it drove past, but the officers did not stop him or indicate there was any problem.He walked to the back of his house and through his yard to go into the house.When he got inside, he told his fiancée that two cops had gone by but informed her there was nothing wrong.His fiancée told him that she would go out to her car and his truck and lock them up.
{¶ 12} After about five minutes inside the house, Goodpasture went back outside through the front of his house to make sure the truck was locked up; the officers sped around the corner with their lights on.Goodpasture testified that he put his hands up and the officers immediately handcuffed him.
{¶ 13} Goodpasture stated that the firearm was not in the vehicle while he was in it, implying that his fiancée had put it in there after he got out of the car.According to Goodpasture, the firearm belonged to his fiancée, who had a concealed carry permit.He further stated that the window tint on his fiancée's car was a "negative five tint" and that there would have been "no way [to see anything] with any kind of flashlight" inside the car due to the significant window tint.Tr. 47.
{¶ 14}The trial court sustained Goodpasture's motion to suppress on March 7, 2023, based on the following findings of fact:
(Emphasis added.)Decision Sustaining Defendant's Motion to Suppress, p. 1-2.
{¶ 15} In sustaining Goodpasture's motion, the trial court found that as a result of the enactment of R.C. 2923.111, Ohio's constitutional carry law that came into effect on June 13, 2022, coupled with the "Second Amendment posture of the regulation of firearms after New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen,"597 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 2111, 213 L.Ed.2d 387(2022), the trial court could not find that the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to detain Goodpasture based merely on the presence of a handgun observed in a parked motor vehicle.The State filed a timely notice of appeal pursuant to R.C. 2945.67(A)andCrim.R. 12(K).
{¶ 16}The State's sole assignment of error states that:
Notwithstanding the perceived pretextual nature of their actions, the officers had reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify Goodpasture's investigatory detention.The trial court erred, therefore, in sustaining Goodpasture's motion to suppress.
{¶ 17} Under this assignment of error, the State contends that the trial court erred in refusing to consider that the window tint violation provided the officers with reasonable articulable suspicion to lawfully detain Goodpasture.The State points to several statements made by the trial court during the motion to suppress hearing as demonstrating the trial court's refusal to consider the window tint violation, including:
{¶ 18} Goodpasture, on the other hand, contends that the trial court's decision was supported by competent, credible evidence and, therefore, the trial court did not err in determining that the basis for the stop was for the firearm, not the window tint violation, such that the officers lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to detain him.
{¶ 19}(...
To continue reading
Request your trial