The Akron Legal News

Court rules police unlawfully seized cocaine from hotel room

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: May 29, 2015

The state recently lost an argument before the 10th District Court of Appeals asserting that a trial court improperly granted a man’s motion to suppress evidence after police seized a bag of cocaine from his hotel room.

The three-judge appellate panel agreed with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas that officers lacked a lawful reason to enter Jerry Thomas’ room at an area Days Inn hotel.

On the night in question, police entered Thomas’ room without a warrant and immediately placed him under arrest and seized a plastic baggie containing a white substance from his hotel bed.

The substance later tested positive for cocaine and Thomas was charged with one count of possession of cocaine, a fourth-degree felony.

He promptly filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search of his hotel room and the trial court held a hearing on the matter.

The trial court noted its understanding of the basic facts, specifically that two police officers were on bicycle patrol when they smelled marijuana coming from a room at the Days Inn.

The officers were reportedly able to follow the smell to a room with an open window and saw a bag of what they suspected to be cocaine on the bed.

The state then called Columbus Police Officer Timothy Stout to testify about events of that night.

Stout said the hotel room was very small and well lit. He explained that he could clearly see Thomas standing over top of the baggie and recognized the packaging as that often used for cocaine.

He further stated that he did not knock, but rather motioned Thomas to the door through the window and Thomas opened the door for the officers.

Stout said Thomas looked confused and glanced from the officers to the cocaine, which was only about two steps away from the doorway.

“I’m concerned for what he’s going to do with it if I don’t, you know, get ahold of that. I stepped two steps in, I secured the crack cocaine while my partner had grabbed a hold of the defendant to start handcuffing him,” Stout said.

The second officer gave similar testimony, noting that he took Thomas into custody as Stout stepped passed and grabbed the baggie.

Following the hearing, the trial court granted Thomas’ motion to suppress, ruling that the officers did not have a lawful reason for the warrantless entry into Thomas’ hotel room.

The state then appealed that ruling to the 10th District arguing that the police complied with the Fourth Amendment “every step of the way.”

The appellate judges noted that the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from warrantless searches and seizures but certain exceptions do apply to the warrant requirement.

The state asserted that four of those exceptions applied, including good faith, plain view, inevitable discovery and exigent circumstances.

The district judges found that the trial court had addressed each of those exceptions.

Specifically, the trial court ruled that exigent circumstances did not apply because the officers did not have probable cause to enter the common area of the hotel room.

The lower court found the officers’ account of following the smell of marijuana and believing Thomas would destroy the evidence to be “less than credible.”

“There is, however, absolutely no evidence that the defendant attempted to destroy the evidence. Had the defendant made an effort to do so or to shut the door, that might support the state’s argument,” the trial court wrote, noting that it would have been logical for Thomas to destroy the evidence before answering the door if he was going to do so.

The appellate court agreed that there was no evidence that Thomas planned to destroy the cocaine.

It also ruled that the officers were not clearly in hot pursuit because Thomas was in a private dwelling.

“In the instant case, even accepting the presence of probable cause based upon the officers’ observations, we agree with the trial court that the record does not support a finding that exigent circumstances justified the officers’ warrantless entry into the hotel room to arrest appellee,” Presiding Judge Susan Brown wrote for the court.

The judges further held that the plain view doctrine could not apply to the case because the officers were not lawfully in the room when they saw the drugs.

The state next argued that the doctrine of inevitable discovery applied because the officers would have found the drugs during a protective sweep subsequent to Thomas’ arrest.

“Further, the state’s arguments are premised upon its assertion that the arrest itself was lawful and therefore the drugs were within the area searchable incident to the arrest because they were within appellee’s immediate control,” Brown stated.

The district judges, however, held that the arrest was not lawful and overruled that argument.

Finally, they determined that the good faith exception was inapplicable as it primarily applies to officers who act with good faith on the instructions of others.

“Here, because the officers’ entry into the room was not pursuant to a warrant, nor based on the officers’ reasonable reliance on ‘an external source, which turned out to be erroneous,’ we conclude that the good-faith exception is inapplicable,” Brown wrote.

Judges William Klatt and Betsy Luper Schuster joined Brown to affirm the lower court’s judgment.

The case is cited State v. Thomas, 2015-Ohio-1778.

[Back]