State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 14 December 1978 |
| Citation | 401 N.E.2d 459,61 Ohio App.2d 209 |
| Parties | , 15 O.O.3d 323 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. TAYLOR, Appellant. * The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BOBULSKI, Appellant.* |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a police officer, lawfully standing outside a residence, observes, through an unobstructed window, the handling of illegal merchandise, such observation and the subsequent confiscation of the material constitute a legal search and seizure.
George C. Smith, Pros. Atty., and William A. Reddington, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Cassidy, Niehoff & Meeks, Columbus, for appellant Stephen F. Taylor.
Abraham, Purkey & Levy, Columbus, for appellant James J. Bobulski.
These cases have been consolidated for appeal as the same legal issues are applicable to both. Defendant Taylor was charged with one count of possession of marijuana, and defendant Bobulski was charged with one count of possession of marijuana and two counts of possession of Schedule II drugs. Both defendants filed timely motions to suppress physical evidence seized and statements made, all of which were overruled. Thereafter, Taylor entered a plea of no contest to attempted trafficking in marijuana, and Bobulski entered a plea of no contest to trafficking in marijuana. Both defendants were found guilty and sentenced accordingly.
From the judgment of the trial court, defendants have appealed, setting forth the following assignments of error:
1. "The trial court erred in overruling appellants' motion to suppress physical evidence obtained through a warrantless search of appellants' apartment in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Section 14 Article I of the Ohio Constitution."
2. "The trial court erred in overruling appellants' motion to suppress physical evidence obtained through a warrantless seizure of evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Section 14 Article I of the Ohio Constitution."
3. "The trial court erred in overruling appellants' motions to suppress statements made to authorities after their arrest in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Article I Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution."
Two Columbus police officers assigned to the narcotics bureau had an apartment located at 28 East Sherman Avenue, Columbus, while conducting a surveillance on October 26, 1977. At about 9 a. m., defendant Bobulski entered the apartment carrying a gym bag and a guitar case. The apartment building is located about forty yards from the street and is surrounded by a chain link fence with a gate. There is a walkway entrance which runs along the apartment from the street sidewalk, which is used for entry to the various apartments located therein. At the time Bobulski was seen, the police officers were observing the apartment from the alley. After being informed by another surveillance crew that Bobulski had entered the apartment, a police officer walked along the sidewalk within the gate used for traffic to the various apartments, and from the apartment sidewalk looked into the apartment which had a large bay window in front with no curtains or other obstructions, other than a hanging plant which came down about a quarter of the way in the window. At that time, Officer Stevens observed Bobulski and Taylor inspecting plastic baggies, containing a brownish substance. From Officer Stevens' experience, the substance and the type of packaging was of the manner usually associated with marijuana which has been bagged for sale. According to Officer Stevens, from what he observed through the window, he "suspected the brownish substance was marijuana." Stevens then went to the door, knocked and got no response. He knocked again and still received no response. After hearing some noises inside the apartment, he jumped back off the porch onto the apartment walkway, looked into the bay window and saw that "Mr. Taylor had gathered up the marijuana into his arms in the bag and was making it towards the dining room or rear portion of the apartment and was looking back towards the front." Stevens stated: "I don't know if he actually saw me * * *." Another detective ran to the back and apprehended Taylor as he was coming out the backdoor of the residence.
The officers searched the back of the apartment for discarded marijuana and did not find any. They then saw a substance lying on the floor in the kitchen, whereupon they entered the kitchen to seize the marijuana and to arrest Bobulski, Taylor already having been arrested. After entering the apartment, they saw, in the open guitar case, plainly visible bottles containing several thousand Schedule II drugs and a plastic bag which contained pharmaceuticals. Admittedly, Officer Stevens' initial purpose in entering the apartment area from the street, on the walkway, was to visually investigate what could be seen inside the apartment, without, in the words of Officer Stevens, "committing trespass." There were no "No Trespass" signs at the sidewalk and the apartment sidewalk was freely accessible to those persons choosing to use it.
After defendants were arrested, they were taken to Columbus Police Headquarters where, after being advised of their Miranda rights, and signing Miranda waivers, they made incriminating statements concerning their possession of the illegal narcotics.
The trial court overruled all of the motions to suppress, ruling that the police officer who made his observations from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rose
...landing outside the apartment door observed through an apartment window items allegedly stolen in the burglary); State v. Taylor, 61 Ohio App.2d 209, 401 N.E.2d 459 (1978) (no Fourth Amendment violation where the officer had a right to be on a sidewalk within the premises with the purpose t......
-
State v. Carter
...transit authority right-of-way was able to see through a crack in the window curtain into defendant's apartment); State v. Taylor, 61 Ohio App.2d 209, 401 N.E.2d 459 (1978) (finding no search where officers looked into unshaded apartment window from public sidewalk).12 See, e.g., Lorenzana ......
-
State v. Lemuel Israel, 97-LW-3395
... ... Fourth Amendment. [ 9 ] ... Police ... are privileged to go upon private property when in the proper ... exercise of their duties. See State v. Chapman ... (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 687, 647 N.E.2d 504; R.C. 2911.21; ... United States v. Taylor; United States v ... Hersh (C.A.9, 1972), 464 F.2d 228, 230, certiorari ... denied (1972), 409 U.S. 1008, 93 S.Ct. 442 ("[T]here is ... no rule * * * which makes it illegal per se * * * to walk up ... the steps and knock on the front door of any man's ... 'castle' ... ...
-
State v. Lewis H. Davis
...properly use his observation through an unobstructed window of the handling of drugs to establish a lawful seizure of the contraband. Taylor, supra. In case at bar, the marijuana plants were partially enclosed on three sides by plywood that was approximately four feet high and on the fourth......