State v. Hardy

Citations

• 2025 Ohio 5194

Syllabus

The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to suppress. The detective's surveillance of appellant at the residence, from a vantage point where the detective had a right to be, did not constitute a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, based on either the traffic infraction or the active warrant, law enforcement had reasonable articulable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop of the vehicle. Because the officer observed the firearm in plain view through the open car door, there was no invasion into appellant's legitimate expectation of privacy. Based on the discovery of the firearm in plain view, the officers were justified when they engaged in a protective sweep of the vehicle. Judgment affirmed.