The Akron Legal News

Court: Police properly arrested pawn shop owners

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 15, 2014

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio’s ruling that three Southwest Ohio police officers did indeed conduct a proper search and seizure has been affirmed by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A panel of three judges reviewed a lawsuit brought by Tyler Young and D’Jango Hendrix which alleged that three police officers from Colerain Township subjected them to an illegal search and seizure, interfered with their civil rights and illegally arrested and prosecuted Young.

The district court had granted summary judgment on all claims to the police officers — Scott Owen, Mark Denney and Joseph Hendricks — after it concluded that probable cause existed for the officers’ actions.

Case summary states that Young and Hendrix owned and operated the Ohio Trading Company, or OTC, a store that bought and sold second-hand items located in Colerain Township.

In 2010, a stolen GPS device was discovered at OTC and reported to the Colerain police.

The CTPD began an investigation into OTC when the Mason and Fairfield police departments both warned them that Young was suspected of trafficking in stolen electronics.

“Several weeks of surveillance revealed that many suspected and former criminals were frequently selling items to OTC,” case summary states.

In consultation with prosecutor Bill Anderson, the police eventually decided to use a confidential informant, Randy Earls, to conduct controlled sales to OTC.

The Home Depot provided the police with items to sell including a tool set, a generator, a weed-eater and a lawn mower all individually valued at more than $500.

All of the items were unopened when Earls sold them to OTC and the tool set still had a visible security lanyard attached.

The items sold for significantly less than a third of their retail value.

The police obtained search warrants for OTC and Young’s residence and recovered 23 items that were later claimed by owners who had reported them stolen.

Young was indicted by a grand jury for receiving stolen property but the case never made it to trial.

Anderson dropped the charges after he concluded that he could not prove the case.

The next year, Young and Hendrix filed their suit alleging Section 1983 constitutional claims of illegal arrest, illegal seizure of property and malicious prosecution.

Under Section 1981, they claimed impairment of contracts, arguing that the police interfered with OTC’s lease, and under Section 1985 they claimed that the officers were part of a civil conspiracy to force the closure of their business.

In addressing the Section 1983 claims, the appellate panel stated there was no dispute that the three officers were acting in their official capacity as police.

“We must determine, therefore, whether a factual dispute exists with respect to whether the plaintiffs were subjected to an illegal search and seizure, and whether Young was illegally arrested and maliciously prosecuted,” wrote Judge Eugene Siler on behalf of the court of appeals.

Young and Hendrix claimed the police searched, seized and arrested without probable cause with their argument hinging on the fact that the informant, Earls, never explicitly stated during the controlled sales that the items he had were stolen.

“Plaintiffs argue that without the ‘explicit representation’ referenced in (Ohio Law), sting operations in Ohio that use items legitimately acquired by police cannot — as a matter of law — establish the crime of receiving stolen property,” wrote Judge Siler.

The appellate panel, however, ruled that the defendants had the better argument.

Probable cause, it held, does not require police to establish a prima facie case that a crime has occurred or is occurring.

“Moreover, this court has never held that the probable cause determination requires an examination of a suspect’s legal defenses,” wrote Judge Siler. “Instead, we have held that ‘where a reasonable police officer would conclusively know that an investigative target’s behavior is protected by a legally cognizable affirmative defense,’ probable cause does not exist.”

In Young’s case, while he had a defense based on Earls’ failure to specifically state that the items were stolen, it was not a conclusive defense and the officers had probable cause to proceed with their investigation.

Additionally, the court of appeals found that, aside from the controlled sales, the officers had sufficient other facts to establish probable cause including the reported stolen GPS and information from other jurisdictions that Young and Hendrix were suspected of selling stolen goods out of their store.

Surveillance also revealed that a “who’s who of criminals” was regularly bringing items to OTC for sale.

“Collectively, this information established an adequate basis for the defendants to find probable cause with respect to Young’s arrest as well as for the authorization to search,” wrote Judge Siler.

Because there was probable cause, the court of appeals concluded Young was not maliciously prosecuted, especially since the police were not the ones who made the decision to issue an indictment.

Young’s and Hendrix’s Section 1981 and 1985 allegations that the police purposely interfered with their lease and conspired to close OTC were “both vague and conclusory,” according to the appellate panel.

Those claims were overruled with no concrete support in the record.

Young and Hendrix failed to prevail on any of their claims and ultimately, the judgment of the district court was affirmed with judges David McKeague and Helene White concurring.

The case is cited Tyler Young, et al. v. Scott Owens, et al., Case No. 13-3681.

[Back]