State v. Meadows

• Decision Date: 31 January 2022
• Docket Number: 20CA3734
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey MEADOWS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

184 N.E.3d 168

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Jeffrey MEADOWS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20CA3734

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Ross County.

January 31, 2022

Roger Soroka and Joshua Bedtelyon, Soroka & Associates, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Jeffrey C. Marks, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Pamela C. Wells, Assistant Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, Chillicothe, Ohio, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Smith, P.J.

{¶1} This is an appeal from a Ross County Common Pleas Court judgment entry convicting Appellant, Jeffrey Meadows, of one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.11, and sentencing him to serve a minimum prison term of two years and a maximum prison term of three years. On appeal, Meadows contends 1) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during an unlawful search and seizure of his vehicle; and 2) that the trial court erred in sentencing him to an indefinite prison term pursuant to the Reagan Tokes Act, in violation of his constitutional rights. However, because we find no merit to the arguments raised under these assignments of error, they are both overruled. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FACTS

{¶2} This matter stems from the traffic stop of Jeffrey Meadows by Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Atwood in Ross County, Ohio, on US 23 South during the afternoon of August 29, 2019. The record before us reveals that Trooper Atwood was sitting stationary on US 23 observing southbound traffic when he noticed Meadows’ vehicle pass by. The record indicates that the trooper noticed a loud and unusual sound emanating from the vehicle, and he also noticed Meadows sitting rigidly in the driver's seat, leaning up towards the steering wheel. Upon observing Meadows’ vehicle pass by, Trooper Atwood then observed Meadows’ vehicle travel over the solid white line by over a tire width until it was out of sight.

{¶3} Trooper Atwood pulled out and eventually caught up with Meadows. Upon catching up with him, he observed Meadows move from the left lane to the right lane without signaling. After confirming Meadows’ vehicle was, in fact, the vehicle that passed by that was making a loud noise, Trooper Atwood activated his lights and initiated a traffic stop. Upon stopping, Meadows can be seen on the cruiser video making a slight jerking motion to the right. As Trooper Atwood approached the passenger side of the vehicle, he asked Meadows if he was "shoving" something. Although it cannot be deciphered on the dash cam video, apparently Meadows told the trooper that he took out his "grill" (gold teeth covering) and put it in the cup holder.

{¶4} In addition to Meadows, there were two female passengers in the vehicle. Trooper Atwood asked Meadows to step out of the vehicle and when he did, it appears from the video that something may have fallen, to which Trooper Atwood responded by asking Meadows if that was his "burner." Meadows responded in the negative and could not produce a driver's license or identification card. Trooper Atwood thereafter took him to the front of his cruiser where he patted him down. He then placed Meadows in the front seat and proceeded to ask him for identifying information, including his social security number, in order to run it through the system. He also asked him who owned the vehicle. There was some confusion over who the owner was.¹ As such, Trooper Atwood moved Meadows to the back seat, which he explained was a safety precaution. Meadows was not handcuffed at this time, although the door was shut and the window was open. Trooper Atwood then went to speak with the passengers in the vehicle. Both passengers denied ownership of the vehicle.

{¶5} Trooper Atwood then came back and informed Meadows both passengers denied ownership of the vehicle. Meadows then told Trooper Atwood it was his vehicle and that he had told him that to begin with. Trooper Atwood disagreed and asked for consent to search the vehicle. Verbal consent was given by Meadows. By that time, backup had arrived and Trooper Boetcher stood by Meadows as he was seated in the cruiser while Trooper Atwood searched the vehicle. During the search of the vehicle Trooper Atwood located what was later determined to be 90 grams of methamphetamine rolled up in a sock behind a loose trim panel in the center console of the vehicle. A cell phone was located there as well. At that time Trooper Atwood returned to his cruiser and placed Meadows in handcuffs and read him his Miranda rights.² After being mirandized, Meadows stated "I just get high." Trooper Atwood thereafter seized another cell phone and $1200.00 cash in small bills from Meadows’ person. Search warrants were issued for forensic examinations of both phones. There is nothing in the record that indicates what evidence, if any, was recovered from the forensic review of the cell phones. Meadows was initially charged in the Chillicothe Municipal Court with one count of drug trafficking and one count of possession of drugs.

{¶6} After being bound over to the common pleas court, however, Meadows was only indicted on one count of aggravated possession of drugs on December 6, 2019. On February 11, 2020, Meadows filed a motion to suppress all evidence and statements obtained as a result of the stop, which he claimed was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. He also claimed that the issuance of the search warrants for the cell phones was not supported by probable cause, and he further argued that the warrants that were issued were overbroad and lacked particularity. A hearing on the motion to suppress was held on June 4, 2020. After considering the evidence presented at the hearing as well as arguments made in post-hearing briefs, the trial court denied the motion on July 16, 2020. Thereafter, Meadows entered a plea of no contest to the sole count of the indictment and was convicted and sentenced to a minimum two-year prison term and a maximum three-year prison term on December 10, 2020. It is from this order that Meadows now brings his timely appeal, setting forth two assignments of error for our review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE OBTAINED DURING AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF HIS VEHICLE.

{¶7} In his first assignment of error, Meadows contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence that was obtained after what he describes as an unlawful search and seizure of his vehicle. He raises four arguments under this assignment of error. He first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence that was obtained after a traffic stop which he contends was not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Second, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence that was obtained with a search warrant which he claims lacked sufficient particularity and was overbroad. Third, he argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements that were obtained during the traffic stop, which he claims were obtained in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. Fourth, he argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence that he claims was obtained with a search warrant that lacked probable cause.

Standard of Review

{¶8} Generally, "appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact." State v. Codeluppi , 139 Ohio St.3d 165, 2014-Ohio-1574, 10 N.E.3d 691, ¶ 7, citing State v. Burnside , 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. The Supreme Court of Ohio has explained as follows:

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 witnesses. Consequently, an appellate court must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must then independently determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.

(Citations omitted.) Burnside at ¶ 8.

Legal Analysis

{¶9} "The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 14, prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures." State v. Emerson , 134 Ohio St.3d 191, 2012-Ohio-5047, 981 N.E.2d 787, ¶ 15. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that these provisions provide the same protection in felony cases. State v. Hawkins , 158 Ohio St.3d 94, 2019-Ohio-4210, 140 N.E.3d 577, ¶ 18. "This constitutional guarantee is protected by the exclusionary rule, which mandates the exclusion at trial of evidence obtained from an unreasonable search and seizure." State v. Petty , 4th Dist., 2019-Ohio-4241, 134 N.E.3d 222, ¶ 11.

{¶10} " ‘[S]earches [and seizures] conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by [a] judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.’ " (Citations omitted.) State v. Conley , 4th Dist. Adams No. 19CA1091, 2019-Ohio-4172, 2019 WL 5079558, ¶ 17, quoting Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). "Once a defendant demonstrates that he or she was subjected to a warrantless search or seizure, the burden shifts to the state to establish that the warrantless search or seizure was constitutionally permissible." State v. Dorsey , 4th Dist. Scioto No. 19CA3874, 2019-Ohio-3478, 2019 WL 4114823, ¶ 13. In this case, it is clear that Trooper Atwood acted without a warrant in initiating the traffic stop at issue.

The Initial Stop

{¶11} Meadows first argues under this assignment of error that the initial stop of his vehicle was not supported by reasonable...