The Akron Legal News

Court rules officer had reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: January 29, 2014

The 9th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, ruling that a police officer had a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity in order to conduct a traffic stop.

Shane Rogers appealed the judgment of the trial court, which denied his motion to suppress evidence seized from the stop.

After initiating the traffic stop the police confirmed that Rogers was the owner of the vehicle and that his license was suspended with limited driving privileges, which led to his arrest.

During the course of the arrest, the police discovered a bag of oxycodone pills in Rogers’ pocket and he was subsequently indicted on one count of aggravated possession of drugs.

Rogers filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to conduct the stop and that all the evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop should be suppressed.

The trial court denied the motion and Rogers ultimately pleaded no contest to the charges.

Upon appeal, he again claimed that this motion should have been granted and accused the court of relying on facts not in evidence.

The three-judge appellate panel found no merit to Rogers’ arguments.

It reviewed the record, in which Officer Drew Reed of the Akron Police Department testified that he was on patrol around 9:50 p.m. on the night in question when he saw a vehicle pulled over in an illegal parking spot on the road.

Reed noticed that the car had restrictive plates, indicating that the driver’s license had been suspended for DUI.

He also observed two people in the vehicle and that the engine was running and lights were on.

Reed told the court that the car was idling in a high crime area and that he had made several drug-related arrests in that part of town in the past.

Based on his observations, Reed testified that he found the circumstances to be suspicious.

When the officer entered the license plate number of the vehicle into the computer database system, he discovered that the owner of the vehicle had a suspended license.

At that point, he decided to initiate an investigatory traffic stop.

Reed subsequently confirmed that Rogers was the driver, the car belonged to him and he had a suspended license.

He also determined Rogers was not driving anywhere for work-related purposes, for which he had driving privileges.

When Rogers was asked to exit the vehicle in order to be placed under arrest for driving while under license suspension, a bag of pills fell from Rogers’ pocket.

“This court concludes that Officer Reeds’ investigatory stop of Rogers’ vehicle was proper,” wrote Presiding Judge Donna Carr on behalf of the 9th District. “Based on a totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

The appellate panel held that Reed properly checked the status of the vehicle and owner in the computer database and that he could reasonably infer that the vehicle was being driven by its owner.

“Moreover, there were two people in the running vehicle, raising the reasonable inference that the driver was not going to or from his own place of employment, but was rather engaged in personal activities with someone else,” wrote Judge Carr.

Reed testified that the two people in the car were looking down and that, based on his experience and training, people involved in using or dealing drugs together often focus their attention downward.

The appellate panel concluded that Reed had probable cause to stop Rogers’ car, but it also cautioned that “the mere presence of restricted license plates on a vehicle does not give rise to the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”

Judge Carr noted that it was the restricted plates, coupled with other factors and the officer’s observations, that that gave rise to the Reed’s conclusion that the driver was engaged in illegal activity.

“Under those circumstances, as in this case, the investigatory traffic stop was proper,” wrote Judge Carr. “Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying Rogers’ motion to suppress.”

The judgment of the Summit County court was affirmed with judges Beth Whitmore and Jennifer Hensal concurring.

The case is cited State v. Rogers, 2013-Ohio-103.

[Back]