The Akron Legal News

Login | March 28, 2024

Judges rule police had no compelling reason to enter noisy apartment

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News

Published: June 29, 2015

In the 9th District Court of Appeals, a panel of three judges recently found that the Summit County Court of Common Pleas properly granted a motion to suppress evidence obtained after an officer unlawfully entered a defendant’s home.

The state of Ohio filed the appeal challenging the Summit County court’s decision to grant the motion to suppress from James Gorden.

Case summary states that, around 1 a.m. on Nov. 22, 2013, Barberton police officers Michael Cope and Herbert Shields responded to a complaint of loud music coming from a second-floor apartment.

The officers arrived at the location, knocked loudly on Gorden’s door and explained to him that there had been noise complaints regarding music coming from his apartment.

Gorden told the officers that he would turn the sound down then closed the door.

The officers waited three minutes but, when the music did not abate, Cope knocked on the door again.

When Gorden answered, Cope informed him that he was going to issue a citation for violating a noise ordinance and requested Gorden’s identification.

Gorden, however, refused to comply with the request and attempted to close the door.

Court documents state that Cope stopped Gorden by putting his foot in the door, a struggle ensued, and Gorden was ultimately subdued and arrested.

Gorden was indicted for having weapons under disability, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and obstructing official business.

However, the trial court granted his motion to suppress the evidence against him when it found that none of the exceptions to warrant requirements were met when the officers entered his home.

On appeal to the 9th District court, the state argued that the trial court erred by granting the motion.

“Regarding whether Officer Cope was permitted to stick his foot in Mr. Gorden’s door to prevent him from closing it, the United States Supreme Court has explained that ‘physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed,’” Judge Jennifer Hensal wrote on behalf of the 9th District court. “In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house; absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.”

Though several exceptions apply to the warrant requirement, the reviewing court held that the officers in Gorden’s case met none of them.

Cope himself testified that Gorden may not even have heard him when he told Gorden that he was going to issue a citation.

The appellate panel went on to state that there was no evidence of an injured person in the home, no threat to life or limb, no risk that evidence would be removed from the scene and no “compelling need for action.”

Additionally, Hensal wrote that the state “has not specifically identified what exigency justified Officer Cope’s physical intrusion across the threshold of Mr. Gorden’s home.”

The state apparently cited cases that implied the “hot pursuit” exception to warrant requirements, but the court of appeals ruled that the record did not establish that exigency.

“Upon review of the record, we conclude that, even if Mr. Gorden obstructed official business by refusing to provide his identity when Officer Cope attempted to cite him for violating the noise ordinance, the state has not established that it had a compelling need to enter Mr. Gorden’s apartment without a warrant,” Hensal wrote.

Judge Carla Moore joined Hensal to form the majority and affirm the trial court’s decision to grant Gorden’s motion to suppress.

Judge Donna Carr dissented with a separate opinion in which she stated that she would remand the case for the trial court to consider the credibility of Officer Cope.

The case is cited State v. Gorden, 2015-Ohio-2133.

Copyright © 2015 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]