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. Dorsey

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Scioto

August 21, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TYLI DORSEY, Defendant-Appellee.

          CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT

          Shane A. Tieman, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and Pat Apel, Scioto County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellant.

          W. Jeffrey Moore, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

          ABELE, J.

         {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Scioto County Common Pleas Court judgment that granted a motion to suppress evidence. The State of Ohio, plaintiff below and appellant herein, assigns the following error for review:

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE APPELLEE'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE."

         {¶ 2} On March 25, 2017, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Nick Lewis stopped a large pickup truck after clocking the vehicle traveling 65 miles per hour in a 55 mile-per-hour zone. The trooper approached the driver, appellee, and asked her to exit the vehicle. A protracted series of events ensued, and the traffic stop eventually led to the discovery of a large amount of illegal drugs.

         {¶ 3} On May 16, 2017, a Scioto County grand jury returned an indictment that charged appellee with four first-degree-felony drug related offenses, tampering with evidence, assault, and resisting arrest.

         {¶ 4} Appellee later filed a motion to suppress evidence and alleged that the trooper's seizure and ensuing search violated her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Appellee thus requested the trial court to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop.

         {¶ 5} On January 17 and 29, 2019, the trial court held a hearing to consider appellee's motion to suppress. Trooper Lewis testified that after he stopped appellee's vehicle and made the initial contact with appellee, he noted that her pants were undone. The trooper obtained appellee's driver's license and asked her to exit the vehicle. Before appellee exited the vehicle, she took a jacket from the truck and tied it around her waist. The trooper explained that he was curious why appellee's pants were undone and she had tied a jacket around her waist and he asked for permission to pat her down. The trooper claimed that appellee agreed to a pat-down search. During the pat-down search, the trooper stated that he felt something "hard" between appellee's legs. As the trooper started to question appellee about it, he saw appellee attempt to reach into the front of her waistband. The trooper thought it appeared as though appellee was attempting to remove a condom from her waistband. The trooper again patted appellee down to see if the hard object remained, and it did. The trooper then decided to place appellee under arrest.

         {¶ 6} The state also played the video of the traffic stop. The transcription of the video reveals that the trooper asked appellee to step out of the vehicle so that he could check her license. The trooper also informed appellee that he was going to pat her down to ensure she did not have any weapons. As he did so, the trooper noted that he felt something "hard." He asked appellee whether she had anything in her pants, and she responded that she did not. He then told appellee he was going to "check again real quick." The trooper asked appellee to "[w]iden [her] stance." He asked appellee if she "want[ed]" to remove the item he felt. She again denied having anything in her pants. The trooper once more asked appellee to "[w]iden [her] stance."

         {¶ 7} At this point appellee objected and demanded that a female officer be present. The trooper stated that none were working at that time. Appellee stated: "Well, you're going to have to call one. You're not allowed to search me. You're not allowed to search me." The trooper told her that he is "allowed" to search her. She responded: "No, you're not. You asked me if I had weapons on me. I don't have any weapons." The trooper stated: "but when I pat you down (inaudible) contraband." Appellee again denied having anything in her pants. The trooper stated: "Ma'am, you have drugs right there." Appellee once again denied having anything in her pants and stated that she was "on [her] period." She also denied having "a hard object" in her pants. The trooper then advised appellee of her rights and stated, "I can see it sticking out of your pants."

         {¶ 8} The trooper next explained to appellee that she could either cooperate with him and hand over the "hard object" he felt in her pants, or she could continue to deny that she had anything in her pants and he would take her to jail. Appellee continued to deny that she had anything in her pants. The trooper thus transported appellee to the state highway patrol post. A later series of events resulted in the discovery of a large amount of illegal drugs.

         {¶ 9} On cross-examination, the trooper agreed that the reason he asked appellee to exit the vehicle was because he noted that her pants were undone. The trooper stated that he suspected that appellee's pants were undone because she was attempting to conceal contraband. The trooper also agreed that appellee did not verbally consent to a pat-down search. He nevertheless believed that appellee consented by acquiescence. The trooper explained: "She could have said no, but she consented to my request." The trooper also stated that even though he "had a hunch that [appellee] had something down her pants," the purpose of his pat-down search was to check for weapons. The ...


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.