State v. Grayson

• Docket Number: C-230083
• Decision Date: 29 November 2023
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACOB GRAYSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2023-Ohio-4275

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JACOB GRAYSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. C-230083

Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton

November 29, 2023

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Trial No. B-2105812

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Bryan R. Perkins, for Defendant-Appellant.

2

OPINION

Bergeron, Judge

{¶1} During a traffic stop prompted by tinted windows and an unilluminated headlight, police discovered an outstanding traffic capias for the car's passenger, defendant-appellant Jacob Grayson. An ensuing search of Mr. Grayson's wallet revealed suspected drugs, which translated into an indictment and a later conviction for possession of a fentanyl-related compound in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). Mr. Grayson moved to suppress the evidence against him, arguing the search ran afoul of his constitutional rights. The trial court, however, disagreed and denied his motion to suppress. He now appeals, challenging the failure to suppress the evidence. After reviewing the record, however, we reject his argument and affirm the trial court's judgment.

I.

{¶2} In November 2021, as Delhi Township Police Officer Michael Gerde observed traffic on Delhi Pike from a stationary position, he noticed a vehicle driving with only one headlight illuminated and darkly-tinted windows. Suspicious, Officer Gerde ran the license plate number, and it returned multiple people attached to the vehicle-one of whom had an open traffic capias out of Addyston Mayor's Court.

{¶3} Based on all of that information, he initiated a traffic stop and discovered Mr. Grayson in the front passenger seat of the vehicle. Officer Gerde asked both the driver and Mr. Grayson for identification, and then he proceeded to his cruiser where he ran the identification, uncovering Mr. Grayson's open traffic capias. At that time, Officer Gerde did not know of the specific violation prompting the capias-only that it was traffic related.

3

{¶4} Officer Gerde removed Mr. Grayson from the vehicle and patted him down, removing a pack of cigarettes and his wallet. He advised Mr. Grayson of the capias and informed him that he planned to call Addyston Police Department to determine how to proceed. Testimony at trial established that it was Delhi police policy to arrest any individual with an outstanding warrant. Officer Gerde placed Mr. Grayson in the back of the police cruiser without handcuffing him. He then searched the wallet and found a small paper bindle containing suspected drugs, later identified as a fentanyl-related compound.

{¶5} After finding the suspected drugs, Officer Gerde handcuffed Mr. Grayson, placed him under arrest, and read him his Miranda warnings. He then contacted the Addyston Police Department and confirmed the capias. He also tested the window tint, establishing its illegality. Mr. Grayson was escorted to the Hamilton County Justice Center.

{¶6} The Hamilton County Grand Jury returned a one-count indictment against Mr. Grayson, charging him with possession of a fentanyl-related compound-a felony of the fourth degree-pursuant to R.C. 2925.11(A). Mr. Grayson requested the trial court suppress the evidence discovered, arguing that the police seized the evidence without a search warrant or consent and outside the scope of the search incident to arrest exception because the Addyston traffic capias was illegally premised on an unpaid fine. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to suppress. Mr. Grayson subsequently pleaded no contest, and the trial court found him guilty. Ultimately, the court sentenced him to two years of community control. Mr. Grayson now appeals.

4

II.

{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Grayson maintains that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. To advance his argument, Mr. Grayson presents two issues for our review: his detention and the subsequent search violated the Fourth Amendment, and the warrant was unlawfully issued by the Addyston Mayor's Court, precluding the application of the good faith exception. We proceed to address each of his arguments in turn.

A.

{¶8} In his first issue presented for review, Mr. Grayson generally attacks the denial of his suppression motion. This court's 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, 96 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 14, citing State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. We "must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence." Id., citing State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982)." 'But we must independently determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.'" State v. Thompson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200388, 2021-Ohio-3184, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Taylor, 174 Ohio App.3d 477, 2007-Ohio-7066, 882 N.E.2d 945, ¶ 11 (1st Dist).

{¶9} Because traffic stops constitute seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, they "must comply with the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement." State v. Slaughter, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-170110, C-170111 and C-170112, 2018-Ohio-105, ¶ 10, citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). "When an officer witnesses a specific violation of the traffic code, a stop of the vehicle in which the violation is committed is supported

5

by probable cause." State v. Howell, 2018-Ohio-591, 106 N.E.3d 337, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Johnson, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-010621 and C-010622, 2002-Ohio-2884, ¶ 7.

{¶10} Here, Mr. Grayson does not contest the initial traffic stop or the trial court's finding that Officer Gerde witnessed a traffic violation in light of the vehicle's one functioning headlight and tinted windows. Instead, he argues that the officer requested Mr. Grayson's identification without reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. But "a police officer may request identifying information from a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation without particularized suspicion that the passenger poses a safety risk or is violating the law." State v. Emmons, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150636, 2016-Ohio-5384, ¶ 15, citing United States v. Alexander, 467 Fed.Appx. 355, 362 (6th Cir.2012). Unlike drivers, however, passengers are "not legally obligated to carry identification or to produce it for a police officer." State v. Debrossard, 4th Dist. Ross No. 13CA3395, 2015-Ohio-1054, ¶ 14. Nevertheless, Mr. Grayson willingly complied with Officer Gerde's request for his identification, and we see nothing in the record to suggest that his compliance was not voluntary.

...