[Cite as State v. Garza, 2023-Ohio-2086.]

COURT OF APPEALS

RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.

 Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.

Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

-vsCase No. 2022 CA 0069

IDA GARZA

 Defendant-Appellant O P I N I O N

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Richland County Court of 

Common Pleas, Case No. 2021 CR 987 R

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 22, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

GARY BISHOP DARIN AVERY

Prosecuting Attorney 105 Sturges Avenue

Richland County, Ohio Mansfield, Ohio 44903

CHASE E. BAKER

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney

38 South Park Street

Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0069 2

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ida Lucille Garza appeals the judgment entered by the 

Richland County Common Pleas Court convicting her following her plea of no contest to 

possession of cocaine (R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(4)(a)) and sentencing her to thirty months of 

community control. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} Shortly after midnight on May 21, 2021, Officer Travis Stantz of the 

Mansfield Police Department was watching a suspected drug house from a distance of 

about 800 feet. He observed a pickup truck pull up to the house. The passenger, later 

identified as Appellant, left the truck and went inside the house. Approximately three 

minutes later, Appellant returned to the truck.

{¶3} Officer Stantz followed the truck and noticed the rear license plate light was 

either not present or was dimmed so the plate could not be read, in violation of R.C. 

4513.05 and Mansfield Municipal Code 337.04. He turned off his own headlights to 

confirm the license plate light on the truck was not operational, then stopped the pickup 

truck.

{¶4} After stopping the vehicle, Officer Stantz conversed with both the driver and 

Appellant, while backup arrived on the scene. The driver was not the owner of the vehicle. 

The driver was asked to step out of the vehicle, and Officer Stantz questioned her about 

where they were going. The driver gave consent to search the vehicle.

{¶5} Appellant was asked to step out of the vehicle. Officer Stantz and another 

officer who had arrived on the scene told Appellant they knew she had something on her,

and if she handed it over she would be allowed to go home. Appellant admitted she had 

crack cocaine in her bra. She retrieved the cocaine and handed it to the officers.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0069 3

{¶6} Appellant was indicted by the Richland County Grand Jury on one count of 

possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(4)(a). She moved to suppress 

the cocaine on the basis the stop of the vehicle was illegal, and Appellant was coerced 

into handing police the drugs without being read Miranda warnings. 

{¶7} The trial court held a suppression hearing, at which Officer Stantz testified 

and his dash cam video was played. Appellant also testified at the suppression hearing, 

stating although the officer said she was free to go she did not feel she was free to go. 

She testified she felt she was under arrest even though no one told her she was under 

arrest. Appellant testified she felt compelled to comply with the request she hand over 

the drugs she was hiding in her bra.

{¶8} The trial court overruled the motion to suppress, finding the stop of the truck 

was justified by probable cause of a violation of the law regarding illumination of the 

license plate. The trial court found Miranda warnings were not required because 

Appellant was not in custody at the time she was questioned by police and voluntarily 

handed over the crack cocaine.

{¶9} Appellant entered a plea of no contest to the charge of possession of 

cocaine and was sentenced to thirty months community control. It is from the September 

8, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes her appeal, assigning as error:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION 

TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED DURING A TRAFFIC 

STOP.
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0069 4

{¶10} Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law 

and fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 154-155, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 

71, ¶ 8. When ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of trier of 

fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate witness 

credibility. See State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308,314, 1995-Ohio-243, 652 N.E.2d 988; 

State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). Accordingly, a reviewing 

court must defer to the trial court's factual findings if competent, credible evidence exists 

to support those findings. See Burnside, supra; Dunlap, supra; State v. Long, 127 Ohio 

App.3d 328, 332, 713 N.E.2d 1(4th Dist. 1998); State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142, 

675 N.E.2d 1268 (4th Dist. 1996). However, once this Court has accepted those facts as 

true, it must independently determine as a matter of law whether the trial court met the 

applicable legal standard. See Burnside, supra, citing State v. McNamara, 124 Ohio 

App.3d 706, 707 N.E.2d 539(4th Dist. 1997); See, generally, United States v. Arvizu, 534 

U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740(2002); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 

116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911(1996). That is, the application of the law to the trial 

court's findings of fact is subject to a de novo standard of review. Ornelas, supra.

Moreover, due weight should be given “to inferences drawn from those facts by resident 

judges and local law enforcement officers.” Ornelas, supra at 698, 116 S.Ct. at 1663.

{¶11} Appellant first argues the stop was prolonged beyond the time required to 

issue a citation for the license plate violation, and the officers lacked additional probable 

cause to believe she committed a crime to justify further detention. Appellant failed to 

raise this issue in her motion to suppress. Crim. R. 47 requires every written motion to 

“state with particularity the grounds upon which it is made.” “By requiring the defendant 
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0069 5

to state with particularity the legal and factual issues to be resolved, the prosecutor and 

court are placed on notice of those issues to be heard and decided by the court and, by 

omission, those issues which are otherwise being waived.” State v. Shindler, 70 Ohio 

St.3d 54, 58, 636 N.E.2d 319, 322 (1994). We find by failing to raise this argument in the 

trial court, Appellant has waived this argument on appeal.

{¶12} Appellant also argues she was subject to a custodial interrogation before 

the officer advised her of her Miranda rights. 

{¶13} A duty to administer Miranda warnings arises only when an accused is 

taken into custody. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 

(1966). For purposes of Miranda warnings, “custody” is defined as a formal arrest or 

restraint on the freedom of movement to the degree associated with a formal arrest. State 

v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144, 154, 694 N.E.2d 932 (1998). In order to determine whether 

a person was in custody, the court should apply a totality-of-circumstances test, including 

where the interrogation occurred, whether the investigation had focused on the subject, 

whether the objective indicia of arrest were present, and the length of the questioning 

involved. Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994).

{¶14} After the driver gave consent to search the vehicle, Appellant was instructed 

to step out of the vehicle. A request the driver and passengers step out of a vehicle which 

has been stopped for a traffic violation is permissible even without additional suspicion of 

criminal activity. See, e.g., State v. Williams, 94 Ohio App.3d 538, 544, 641 N.E.2d 239, 

243 (8th Dist. 1994). As Appellant was stepping from the vehicle, officers can be heard 

on the dash cam video telling her they know she has something on her, and if she is 

honest with them and hands it over she will be allowed to go home, but if she makes them 
Richland County, Case No. 2022 CA 0069 6

work, she will go to jail. Within seconds, Appellant admitted to being in possession of 

crack cocaine, reached into her bra, retrieved the cocaine, and handed it to the officers. 

Appellant was never told she was under arrest, was never handcuffed, was never touched 

by any of the officers, and was told she was free to go. Although she argues she was 

threatened by the officers with jail if she did not cooperate, we agree with the trial court 

the entirety of the dash cam video does not support a finding the conduct of the officers 

was threatening, physically intimidating, or an attempt to trick Appellant into a confession. 

We find the trial court did not err in finding she was not in custody for purposes of Miranda, 

and voluntarily gave the drugs in her possession to the police officers. 

{¶15} The assignment of error is overruled.

{¶16} The judgment of the Richland County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.

Gwin, P.J. and

Baldwin, J. concur