The Akron Legal News

Man who had drugs and tried to run from police loses appeal

ANNE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: March 7, 2014

The 2nd District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in its ruling that police had probable cause to arrest and search Sammie Foreman when he ran from police during an investigation.

Foreman was convicted following pleas of no contest to one count of first-degree felony possession of cocaine and one count of fourth-degree felony possession of heroin.

Foreman was indicted in Sept. 14, 2012 and originally entered pleas of not guilty to the charges, then filed a motion to suppress.

During a hearing on the motion, Officer Daniel Perry of the Dayton Police Department testified that on Sept. 5, 2012 at approximately 1 a.m. he and his partner, Office Kyle Watts, were dispatched to a residence on a report of a stolen television.

Alfred McCloud told the officers that Raymond Walters had been staying at his residence until McCloud told him to leave because Walters had a drinking problem.

McCloud said that he left to go to the store and when he returned, his TV was missing.

He told the officers that he believed the TV “might be” at a nearby rooming house.

Perry, Watts and McCloud all proceeded to the residence which consisted of eight to 12 single-room apartments.

Perry told the court that, while he and Watts were knocking on the front door of the building, McCloud “came around from the building and said that a black male just jumped out the back window and took off running.”

They searched the area and attempted to make contact with someone in the building but were unsuccessful so they ended the call.

Approximately two hours later, Perry and Watts met with McCloud again.

He told them he had received word from the alleged suspect, Walters, who told McCloud that the TV was inside the rooming house “in Jay’s apartment.”

“I’m not sure which number but it’s upstairs,” McCloud told the police.

The officers returned to the rooming house and began knocking on an apartment door.

“We’re knocking on the back door, Officer Watts and I hear noises on the back side of the building again,” Perry testified. “Because we know that someone jumped out the last time, we walked around to the back side of the building ... When I came around, I saw a subject on the ground crouched and he takes off running.”

Perry identified Foreman in court as the man he observed crouching under a window who fled from the officers.

A short pursuit followed and Foreman was taken into custody without incident.

Foreman explained that he ran because he had an outstanding warrant for unpaid child support.

The officers conducted a search incident to arrest and found a baggies of crack cocaine and a second bag containing heroin in Foreman’s pockets.

It was confirmed that Foreman had an outstanding warrant but the police never located the original suspect Walters or the TV.

They also never learned the identity of Jay, whose apartment the TV was purported to be in.

Foreman claimed that he was visiting his friend when he heard about the situation with the TV.

At approximately 2 a.m., “a couple of guys come to the door and they were asking me about a TV I know nothing about,” said Foreman.

He testified that the group of about four men seemed “brawly” and that they “looked kind of rough.”

“You know, they was drunk and cussing and I mean, I understood, somebody wants their TV back and I understand,” Foreman told the court. “I didn’t do anything, I just told them I know nothing about it, you know ... But the way they were looking and kind of acting, I felt like it could have been a problem and I wanted to avoid it; that’s what I tried to do.”

Foreman said that when the police started knocking on the door, he was afraid it was the group of men again, so he jumped out of the common room window and ran.

He said he did not hear the police and did not see any officers and he denied jumping out of the same window earlier that morning.

“In overruling Foreman’s motion to suppress, the trial court noted that it found the testimony of the officers credible in all respects, and that Foreman’s version of the evening’s events is utterly incredible,” wrote Judge Mary Donovan for the court of appeals.

The trial court found that McCloud described the man who jumped out of the window the first time as a black mean wearing dark pants and red shoes.

Watts testified that the suspect who fled on the second visit was wearing red shoes.

“The officers characterized defendant’s jumping out of the window while they were pounding at the back door as ‘suspicious,’” the trial judge stated. “No kidding.”

The trial court determined that observing Foreman jump out of a window and flee despite orders to stop gave the officers probable cause to arrest him and the court of appeals agreed.

“Headlong flight — wherever it occurs — is the consummate act of evasion: It is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such,” wrote Judge Donovan, citing the U.S. Supreme Court.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination that Foreman’s actions were indicative of wrongdoing and that it gave the officers probable cause to arrest him and perform a subsequent search of his person.

“Therefore, the trial court did not err in overruling Foreman’s motion to suppress,” Judge Donovan concluded.

Presiding Judge Jeffrey Froelich and Judge Mike Fain concurred to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Foreman, 2014-Ohio-626.

[Back]