State v. Morrow
| Decision Date | 19 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 28441 |
| Citation | 2020 Ohio 3390 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. ANTOINE LAMAR MORROW Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
OPINIONMATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by SARAH E. HUTNIK, Atty. Reg. No. 0095900, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JON PAUL RION, Atty. Reg. No. 0067020 and CATHERINE H. BREAULT, Atty. Reg. No. 0098433, 130 West Second Street, Suite 2150, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Antoine Lamar Morrow, appeals from his conviction in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas after he pled no contest to five counts of having weapons while under disability. In support of his appeal, Morrow challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{¶ 2} In the evening hours of October 12, 2018, Dayton Police Officers Clinton Evans and Steven Ettinger were en route to investigate a reported argument between people in an alleyway near an apartment building at 603 Rockford Avenue. A woman flagged down the officers and led them to the building.
{¶ 3} Upon arrival, the woman informed the officers that her husband's company vehicle had broken down in an alley adjoining an apartment building on Rockford Avenue. At some point, a man emerged from the front door of the apartment building and began yelling at them to move the vehicle. When she told the man the vehicle was inoperable, he threatened her and her husband with a knife and slashed the vehicle's tires. The woman identified the assailant as an African-American male wearing a white t-shirt and blue jeans. The couple left to seek help from the police, and the assailant re-entered the apartment building through the front door.
{¶ 4} The officers went to the parking lot on the other side of the building to investigate. There they found the company vehicle with four flattened tires. Officer Ettinger noticed lights on in the upstairs apartment. He could make out the shadow of a figure traversing the room behind the blind-drawn windows. The unit was later determined to be apartment 3.
{¶ 5} The officers attempted to gain entry though the building's front entrance, but found it to be secured. Eventually, a female resident heard the officers' knocking and came to the front door. The officers informed her they were investigating an incident that occurred in the parking lot. The resident indicated she was the anonymous caller who had heard the argument in the alley and summoned the police. She did not know anyone who matched the description of the knife-wielding man, but offered that someone had recently moved into apartment 3 upstairs. The officers asked if they could enter the building to continue their investigation. The female resident unlocked the front door and allowed them to enter.
{¶ 6} The officers ascended the stairs toward apartment 3. Officer Ettinger maintained a position at the first landing, while Officer Evans proceeded to the second landing, where apartment 3's front door was located. Evans could hear someone speaking inside the apartment, but could not tell whether the man was addressing someone on the phone or in the apartment.
{¶ 7} Officer Evans knocked on the front door. A male voice responded, "Who the f*ck is at my door?" The officer replied, "It's the Dayton Police." Ten to fifteen seconds of silence elapsed, after which the man inside repeated, "Who the f*ck is it?" Officer Evans replied, "It's the Dayton Police." The same exchange took place five or six times. The final time, an increasingly-frustrated Officer Evans replied, "It is the f*cking police, open the door." At that moment, the door abruptly opened and an African-American man in a white t-shirt stood pointing a black handgun at Officer Evans's head. That man was Morrow.
{¶ 8} Officer Evans took a backward step and drew his service weapon, firing three times. He could no longer see Morrow standing in the open doorway, but could not tell whether the man had been shot. Evans advanced toward the apartment and peered inside. He saw Morrow lying on the floor with his back to the door.
{¶ 9} Officer Evans ordered Morrow to show his hands. Morrow said he had been shot and could not move his hands; he expressed his belief that he was going to die. Officer Evans indicated his desire to help but emphasized that he needed to confirm Morrow was no longer armed before entering. Morrow weakly raised each hand. Due to the positioning of his body, however, Officer Evans could not tell whether he was concealing a gun or whether the handgun he had been holding was within reach. Officer Ettinger radioed for a medic.
{¶ 10} Other officers arrived on scene. At Officer Evans's direction, they breached Morrow's apartment through a separate entrance. The officers confirmed that they did not see a gun near Morrow, at which point Evans entered though the front door. He testified that his purpose in entering the apartment at that point was to render aid to Morrow, as per standard policy. Evans observed a black handgun laying on the ground next to the doorframe at the front entrance to the apartment.
{¶ 11} Morrow sustained a gunshot wound to the torso, just below the sternum. He was transported to a hospital for treatment. Thereafter, Dayton Police obtained a warrant to search Morrow's apartment. Items seized included a Hi-Point 9mm pistol, a shell casing found near the doorway, a copper bullet jacket, a knife, cell phones, clothing, and marijuana. (State's Exhibit 6 at Inventory).
{¶ 12} On October 22, 2018, a Montgomery County grand jury levied five charges of having weapons while under disability against Morrow. He initially entered a not guilty plea and moved to suppress the evidence seized in connection with the incident. Following a hearing, the court afforded the parties time to brief the issue of whether Officer Evans's order to Morrow to open his door was unlawful, requiring suppression of the evidence subsequently seized from the apartment.
{¶ 13} The parties submitted their briefs. In a written decision issued on March 18, 2019, the trial court denied Morrow's motion to suppress. Thereafter, Morrow pled no contest to all five counts in the indictment. At sentencing, the court noted that Morrow should be going to prison. Nonetheless, the court agreed with the recommendation in the presentence investigation report that Morrow be sentenced to community control. The court's May 31, 2019 judgment entry reflects this disposition, sentencing Morrow to community control sanctions for a period of time not to exceed five years. Morrow appeals.
{¶ 14} In a single assignment of error, Morrow contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Our review of the facts and circumstances of the case reveals otherwise.
{¶ 15} (Citation omitted.) State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003- Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶ 8. (Citations omitted.) Id.
{¶ 16} We begin by reviewing a number of deeply-rooted principles of search and seizure jurisprudence. An individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. State v. Leak, 145 Ohio St.3d 165, 2016-Ohio-154, 47 N.E.3d 821, ¶ 13. "It is a 'basic principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 476, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).
{¶ 17} "For a search or seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, it must be based upon probable cause and executed pursuant to a warrant." (Citations omitted.) State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47, 49, 734 N.E.2d 804 (2000). (Citations omitted.) Id.
{¶ 18} Generally speaking, the reasonableness of a search or seizure is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Leak at ¶ 13. This reasonableness assessment "is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances." Id., quoting Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996).
{¶ 19} The aforementioned Fourth Amendment protections are not implicated in every interaction between police and civilians. State v. Taylor, 106 Ohio App.3d 741, 747, 667 N.E.2d 60 (2d Dist.1995), citing California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991) and State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586, 639 N.E.2d 498 (2d Dist.1994). Rather, "[t]he United States Supreme Court has created three...
To continue reading
Request your trial