State v. Richardson

Citations

• 2021 Ohio 2751

Syllabus

CONSTUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL - SEARCH AND SEIZURE - CONSENT : The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where the police officers' initial encounter with defendant was not a seizure because the police were simply trying to verify defendant's and his companion's identities and where a reasonable person would have felt free to leave. A police officer's statement to defendant telling him to \come over here\ was not a sufficient show of force to transform a consensual encounter into a seizure where the officer's statement was not threatening or intimidating, he used a conversational tone of voice, he did not brandish weapons or make any show of force, and defendant never expressed any desire to stop the encounter. A search of defendant's person was consensual where the defendant told the officer he could search, voluntarily took items out of his coat pockets, assumed a stance that would facilitate a search, and his actions and body language as reflected in the officer's body camera video showed that he consented to the search. A police officer's statement to defendant to keep his hands on a car did not render the search of defendant's person nonconsensual when a reasonable person would have understood that an officer's safety concerns required the defendant's hands to be in plain view and nothing in the testimony or the video recording showed that defendant had revoked or limited his consent.