State v. Henson

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 1571

Syllabus

CONSTITIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - SEARCH & SEIZURE – CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER - TERRY - PAT-DOWN SEARCH: The initial encounter between police and the defendant was a consensual encounter when police officers, responding to a Spot Shotter alert, saw defendant in the vicinity and asked him if he had heard gunshots, because a reasonable person would have felt free to leave. The trial court did not err in granting defendant's motion to suppress any evidence resulting from a Terry pat-down search where the record showed that (1) the police officers, responding to a Shot Spotter alert, arrived approximately five minutes after the alert to an area with a lot of apartments and houses, (2) the officers saw defendant putting his children in a car, (3) the officer, although he said he was patrolling in a high-crime area, failed to specify where the \hot spots\ were, (4) there were no reports of gunfire from residents of the area, and (5) defendant had no bulge in his clothing indicating that he was armed and made no gestures consistent with having a weapon, and therefore, the record did not show that the police officers had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous. [But see DISSENT: Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the police officers had an objectively reasonable suspicion that defendant might have been involved in criminal activity and that he was armed and dangerous sufficient to justify the stop and pat-down search where (1) the Shot Spotter alert was narrowed down to a small area, (2) it was dark and raining, (3) it was a high-crime area, and (4) when the officers said that they wanted to conduct a pat-down search, the defendant became agitated and turned his body away.]