IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff, : Case No. 13CR312. v. : Judge Berens

Transcription

1 IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff, : Case No. 13CR312 v. : Judge Berens BRANDI L. HUFFER, : ENTRY Overruling Defendant s Motion to Suppress Defendant. : This matter is before the Court upon the Defendant s Motion to Suppress, filed July 17, The Court held an oral hearing concerning Defendant s motion on September 23, Both parties have filed post-hearing briefs, which the Court has considered. After reviewing the written arguments of the parties, the testimony adduced at the oral hearing, and the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court finds Defendant s motion not well-taken and OVERRULES the same. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the testimony of Detective Lyle Campbell, Detective Roger Haley, and Detective Kyle Mears and the evidence produced at the hearing, the Court makes the following findings of fact: 1. In the months preceding the incident now before the Court, Detectives of the SCRAP unit received several anonymous tips information via its open tip line that James D. Mallory, III, was currently trafficking in heroin. The SCRAP Detectives had attempted to make contact with Mr. Mallory at his residence, but were unsuccessful. 1

2 2. On June 4, 2013, Detective Campbell received additional information about Mr. Mallory from a confidential informant known only as Jason. The informant told Detective Campbell that Mr. Mallory and his girlfriend, the Defendant Brandi Huffer, go to the city every morning to buy and sell heroin. 3. Detective Campbell relayed this information to Sergeant Hammler, who then assigned a detective to start conducting surveillance on Mr. Mallory s residence on June 5, On June 4, 2013, prior to any surveillance being undertaken, SCRAP detectives ran a background check with the Ohio Attorney General via the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway, referred to in testimony as the Defendant s OLEG, on Mr. Mallory. Said background check contained license information as well as a picture of the individual. 5. SCRAP Detectives were aware that Mr. Mallory s driver s license had been suspended in the past, as they had previously run a background check on Mr. Mallory upon first receiving information from the anonymous tipline. The June 4, 2013 background check confirmed that Mr. Mallory s license remained suspended as of that date. 6. On June 5, 2013, Detective Mears started surveillance of Mr. Mallory at his residence in an unmarked police vehicle at approximately 9:00 a.m. 7. At approximately 11:00 a.m., Detective Mears saw the Defendant and Mr. Mallory exit Mr. Mallory s residence in Lancaster, Ohio and get in a gold Jeep that belonged to Mr. Mallory s mother. 2

3 8. Detective Mears made a positive identification of both the Defendant, Brandi Huffer, and Mr. Mallory at that time. Mr. Mallory was driving the Jeep; Defendant was sitting in the front passenger seat. 9. Detective Mears followed the Defendant as he entered U.S. 33 toward Columbus and exited Fairfield County. 10. The Defendant exited Route 33 at Hamilton Road in Franklin County. 10. The Defendant pulled into a business off of that exit known for high rates of illegal drug transactions. 11. Approximately ten minutes later the gold Jeep Mr. Mallory had been driving re-entered Route 33 heading in the opposite direction, returning towards Fairfield County. 12. Detective Campbell pulled onto the roadway in front of the gold Jeep being driven by Mr. Mallory. Through his rearview mirror, Detective Campbell was able to make a positive identification of Mr. Mallory as the driver of the vehicle. 13. Detective Haley initiated a traffic stop of the gold Jeep driven by Mr. Mallory. 14. Prior to making the traffic stop on June 5, 2013, SCRAP officers again ran a background check with the Ohio Attorney General (or OLEG ) on Mr. Mallory, which confirmed that Mr. Mallory did not have a valid driver s license at the time the traffic stop was initiated. 15. Upon approaching the vehicle, officers confirmed the driver was James Mallory and the passenger was the Defendant, Brandi Huffer. 3

4 16. Mr. Mallory admitted that he did not have a valid driver s license. 17. Officers called for the assistance of a K9 unit. When Detective Campbell informed Mr. Mallory and the Defendant that a K9 unit was being called, Ms. Huffer admitted to the detective she had needles in her purse. 18. Detective Haley issued a traffic ticket to Mr. Mallory for Driving under Suspension and Driving without an Operator s License. 19. Both the Defendant and Mr. Mallory were ultimately arrested and transported to the local jail. LAW & ANALYSIS Defendant presents one argument in support of his motion to suppress: law enforcement officers did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop of the gold Jeep in which the Defendant was a passenger. Defendant asserts that (1) the anonymous tip informing deputies of the Defendant s alleged drug trafficking behavior did not demonstrate sufficient indicia of reliability; and (2) the State failed to prove any documentation of Mr. Mallory s alleged license suspension. The State argues that SCRAP officers were justified in stopping the vehicle because they knew Mr. Mallory was driving with a suspended license based on the background checks obtained from the Ohio Attorney General s Office. Additionally, the State argues that the anonymous tip, paired with the corroborating circumstances, constituted a reasonable articulable suspicion upon which to stop Mr. Mallory s vehicle. Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer who reasonably suspects that a person has 4

5 committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, may detain that person briefly in order to investigate the circumstances that provoke suspicion. State v. Day, 19 Ohio App. 3d 252, 254, 483 N.E.2d 1195 (5th Dist. 1984). As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated: The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, , 92 S. Ct. 1921, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612 (1972). Rather, the law permits a law enforcement officer to briefly detain an individual reasonably suspected of committing a crime for further investigation, even absent probable cause to arrest. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, , 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984). In the context of a traffic stop, law enforcement must demonstrate specific and articulable facts which justify a reasonable suspicion that the individual to be stopped may be involved in criminal activity, including minor traffic violations. State v. Jones, 7th Dist. No. 03 BE 28, 2004-Ohio-1535, 10 (Mar. 22, 2004). Knowledge that a specific individual is operating a vehicle without a valid driver s license constitutes said reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Id. at 11; State v. Sheron, 8th Dist. No , 2013-Ohio-1989, (May 16, 2013); State, City of Hillsboro v. Stroop, 4th Dist. No. 92CA824, 1993 WL (Aug. 10, 1993); Tallmadge v. McCoy, 96 Ohio App. 3d 604, 608, 645 N.E.2d 802 (1994) (Where an officer knows that the owner of a vehicle has a suspended operator's license... there exists sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop. ). The Court finds, based on the testimony of the SCRAP detectives and the evidence admitted at the oral hearing, that law enforcement officials had reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop of the gold Jeep in which the Defendant was a passenger. Detective Campbell testified that on June 15, 2013, the date of the traffic stop, he had run a criminal 5

6 background check on Mr. Mallory, the driver of the vehicle, via the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway maintained by the Ohio Attorney General. Said background check contained a photograph of Mr. Mallory as well as information from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Specifically, said background check confirmed that Mr. Mallory did not have a valid license. A print out of Mr. Mallory s background check from the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway was admitted as the Defendant s Exhibit 3. At the oral hearing, Detective Campbell was questioned as to his ability to interpret Mr. Mallory s background check and BMV record, as there appeared to be conflicting information within the report. However, all SCRAP detectives testified as to their extensive training and knowledge of the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway reports and clarified any discrepancies in the report by explaining the difference between a Class I and a Class D license. Based on the SCRAP detectives testimony and the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway report admitted at the oral hearing, the Court finds that SCRAP detectives had a reasonable articulable suspicion that Mr. Mallory was driving under suspension and without a valid operator s license, violations of Ohio Revised Code Sections and The Court finds the SCRAP detectives acted within the scope of the Fourth Amendment in initiating the stop based on these traffic violations. Defendant argues that the ultimate reason for initiating the traffic stop on Mr. Mallory s vehicle was to investigate possible drug activity. However, when asked on cross-examination to explain the reason for stopping Mr. Mallory s vehicle, Detective Campbell succinctly responded, Because he did not have a valid driver s license. Detectives Haley and Mears testified similarly. Regardless, any ulterior motives of the SCRAP detectives in pulling over the vehicle, such as investigating possible heroin trafficking, does not make the stop unreasonable. Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St. 3d 3, 11, 665 N.E.2d 1091 (1996) ( [W]here a police officer stops a 6

7 vehicle based on probable cause that a traffic violation has occurred or was occurring, the stop is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment... even if the officer had some ulterior motive for making the stop, such as a suspicion that the violator was engaging in more nefarious criminal activity. ). For these reasons, the Court finds SCRAP detectives had a reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop of the car in which the Defendant was a passenger. In accordance with the case law cited above, law enforcement clearly possessed said suspicion when they became aware, through a background check and the positive identification of Mr. Mallory driving the vehicle, that Mr. Mallory was operating a motor vehicle without a valid license in contravention of Ohio law. This conclusion is dispositive of the issue presented in Defendant s Motion to Suppress. The Court therefore finds it unnecessary to address the additional issues regarding the reliability of the various tips received by the SCRAP detectives and the sufficiency of any corroboration thereof. CONCLUSION Based on the written arguments of the parties, and testimony elicited and evidence admitted at the September 23, 2013 oral hearing, the Defendant s Motion to Suppress is OVERRULED. Copies to: IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Judge Richard E. Berens Fairfield County Prosecuting Attorney, ATTN: Crystal Bennett, Courthouse mailbox & fax Defense Counsel Scott Wood, Courthouse mailbox & fax Defendant c/o Defense Counsel