The Akron Legal News

Login | March 29, 2024

Medina court erred by granting drug defendant’s motion to suppress

TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter

Published: November 21, 2017

A Medina County trial court erred by granting a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence in a vehicle search despite unlawful detention, according to the 9th District Court of Appeals.

The state of Ohio appealed the suppression ruling in favor of Michael Bramley, who was indicted on a felony possession count.

Case summary shows that Bramley was a passenger in a truck that had just left a suspected drug house. Drug Task Force Officer Kelly Moran was asked to follow the truck. After stopping the truck for having an excessively loud muffler, the officer discovered the task force was familiar with both Bramley and the driver, so he asked for a canine to come to the scene.

Moran said he saw Bramley “make furtive movements in the direction of the center console” as he walked toward the truck.

The officer verbally warned the driver about the muffler and said the two men were free to go. Afterward, the driver agreed to allow him to search the truck.

Bramley also agreed to be searched, and crack cocaine was found in his pocket.

The trial court found Moran had no legal reason to detain Bramley since the K-9 did not positively alert after being led around the truck and the verbal warning about the muffler had already been given.

The lower court also determined Bradley’s consent was involuntary, noting Moran’s overhead lights on his cruiser were still activated and there were now several other officers at the scene.

However, the state claimed the officer had reasonable suspicion for the search.

The appellate panel found the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that other officers were still at the scene once the dog , who showed “interest in the truck,” completed his job.

Yet 9th District judges Julie A. Schafer, Thomas Teodosio and Lynne Callahan still determined Bramley and the truck driver were illegally detained.

“The remaining question is whether, despite the unlawful detention, Bramley voluntarily consented to a search of his person,” Judge Schafer wrote. “… Before conducting any search, Officer Moran asked Bramley about the furtive movements he had seen him make. Bramley then admitted to having stashed an open container in the truck. At that point, Officer Moran asked Bramley to consent to a search of his person, and Bramley agreed.”

Judge Schafer cited State v. Starks, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27347, 2015-Ohio-2137, in her opinion. In State v. Starks, the 9th District concluded Starks voluntarily consented to a search of his person after an officer with a non-threatening demeanor stopped a car in which he was a passenger.

“Having reviewed the record, this Court must conclude that a reasonable person in Bramley’s position would have felt he `had the freedom to refuse to answer further questions and could in fact (have left),” Judge Schafer stated.

The panel found the trial judge erred by granting the suppression motion, and the case was reversed and remanded.

The case is cited State v. Potts, 2017-Ohio-8512.


[Back]