Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Nickelson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Belmont

August 30, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
SHAROD DESHAWN NICKELSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

         Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio Case No. 15 CR 237

          For Defendant-Appellant: Atty. Dennis W. McNamara

          Hon. Carol Ann Robb Hon. Cheryl L. Waite Hon. Mary DeGenaro

          OPINION

          ROBB, P.J.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Sharod Deshawn Nickelson appeals the decision of the Belmont County Common Pleas Court overruling his suppression motion. Appellant contends the warrantless entry into his hotel room in order to evict him was unlawful. He also argues the independent source rule did not justify the subsequent search warrant, claiming the warrantless search prompted the search warrant. If both of these arguments are accepted, then he concludes the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine requires the suppression of evidence discovered upon execution of the second search warrant, which was obtained based on evidence found during the first search. We conclude the warrantless entry was valid and the independent source rule validated the subsequent search conducted via a warrant in any event. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

         STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         {¶2} Appellant rented a room at Comfort Inn in St. Clairsville. On October 14, 2015, hotel staff made various calls to law enforcement to report unusual activity; numerous cars coming in and out of the parking lot since Appellant's occupancy. They observed suspected drug trafficking from Appellant's room to cars in the parking lot of the hotel. (Tr. 51-52, 54; 2d Tr. 30, 36, 47, 52). For instance, Detective Starkey of the Martins Ferry Police Department received a call from the manager of the hotel in the afternoon. He advised her to record license plate numbers, watch the situation, and report whether the increased traffic in the parking lot continued. (Tr. 50-52). A few hours later, a hotel employee called the detective to report the traffic had increased while she watched the situation from surveillance video. (Tr. 53-54). The detective was unable to immediately take action, but he consulted with the assistant prosecutor and began preparing an affidavit for a search warrant. (Tr. 55, 70-71; 2d Tr. 54).

         {¶3} The hotel staff did not ask Appellant to leave but eventually called 911. (Tr. 13, 58; 2d Tr. 34-35). They wanted the police to escort Appellant off the premises. (Tr. 48-49). Deputy Carpenter and Deputy Schwarck from the Belmont County Sheriff's Department responded to the call in separate vehicles. At the hotel, two hotel employees explained to the deputies what they observed, including two people repeatedly walking from Appellant's room to different vehicles that pulled into the parking lot. (Tr. 14, 94). The employees showed the deputies notes they had taken and video footage. (Tr. 14, 102).

         {¶4} The hotel staff informed the deputies they wanted Appellant evicted and removed from the premises. (Tr. 16, 95, 102). Due to the suspected drug trafficking, the employees were fearful of approaching Appellant. (Tr. 16). The deputies asked for an employee to accompany them to the room, but both employees adamantly refused to do so and referred to a recent robbery at a nearby hotel. (Tr. 16-17, 89). The hotel employees gave the deputies a keycard to open Appellant's hotel room. (Tr. 17, 102).

         {¶5} The deputies proceeded to Appellant's third floor room. Deputy Carpenter knocked multiple times, announcing he was with the sheriff's department and was there for the hotel staff. (Tr. 18-19). Deputy Schwarck testified they made it clear they were present to remove Appellant from the room at the request of hotel management. (Tr. 106). Deputy Carpenter noted his recent responses to overdose cases and his concern this could be such a case due to Appellant's failure to respond to the knocking. (Tr. 19).

         {¶6} Deputy Carpenter used the room key and attempted to push the door open. The interior latch stopped the door from opening more than a few inches. (Tr. 20). Appellant voiced a sound, and the deputy asked him to open the door as they needed to talk to him. (Tr. 20). Appellant asked them to wait; the deputy said "okay" and reiterated why he was there. (Tr. 20). Appellant then noted he would not be able to release the interior latch with the door pressing on the latch. After the door was closed for a period, Deputy Carpenter knocked again.

         {¶7} When there was no response, Deputy Carpenter pushed open the door but the interior latch was still in place. Appellant had moved to a place in the room where he could be seen through the crack. Deputy Carpenter observed Appellant holding a bag of pills which was illuminated by the light of Appellant's phone. (Tr. 21). The bag was actually the (tied-off) corner portion of a larger plastic bag (to form a "V" shape), which is commonly utilized to store narcotics. (Tr. 103-104). The deputy ordered Appellant to open the door, and Appellant asked him to "wait a minute" but did not then comply. Deputy Carpenter forced open the door with his shoulder. (Tr. 22-23). Appellant was still holding the bag of pills, which turned out to be a schedule II controlled substance containing oxycodone. (Tr. 22, 43). Appellant was arrested at approximately 9:10 p.m.

         {¶8} When Detective Starkey was advised of Appellant's arrest, he consulted with the assistant prosecutor who advised him to submit his affidavit for the warrant without adding any new details. (Tr. 70-71). The detective's affidavit used to support the search warrant made reference only to what he was told by the hotel employees when they called him. (Tr. 64; 2d Tr. 63-64). The search warrant for Appellant's room at Comfort Inn was issued by a judge at 11:17 p.m. Among items discovered in Appellant's room at Comfort Inn were: two keycards for the room at Comfort Inn; two keycards for a room at another hotel; and $9, 181. (Tr. 65). Due to the presence of room keys for another hotel, the police learned Appellant had simultaneously rented a room at the nearby Days Inn. (Tr. 66). The detective then obtained a search warrant for the room at Days Inn where cocaine was discovered.

         {¶9} Appellant was indicted on two counts drug trafficking. Count one involved the cocaine (more than 100 grams) found in Appellant's hotel room at Days Inn. Count two involved the oxycodone pills (more than five times the bulk amount) Appellant was holding when police entered his hotel room at ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.