[Cite as State v. Miles, 2021-Ohio-1029.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsNIKKITA MILES 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

: Hon. Earle E. Wise, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 2020 CA 00052 

: 

: 

: OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Licking County 

Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

19CR523 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: March 29, 2021 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

WILLIAM C. HAYES WILLIAM T. CRAMER 

Licking County Prosecutor 470 Olde Worthington Road, St. 200 

BY: PAULA M. SAWYERS Westerville, OH 43082 

Assistant Prosecutor 

20 S. Second Street, 4th Floor 

Newark, OH 43055 
[Cite as State v. Miles, 2021-Ohio-1029.]

Gwin, P.J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Nikkita Miles [“Miles”] appeals from the December 12, 

2019 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas that overruled her 

motion to suppress evidence. 

Facts and procedural History

{¶2} On July 25, 2019, Miles was indicted by the Licking County Grand Jury with 

aggravated drug possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)/(C)(1)(c) and aggravated 

drug trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)/(C)(1)(d). Both charges were seconddegree felonies involving five times the bulk amount of methamphetamine. 

{¶3} On November 15, 2019, Miles through counsel filed a motion to suppress 

arguing that the traffic stop was unconstitutionally extended beyond the time necessary 

to issue a traffic citation by the use of a drug sniffing canine to sniff around the exterior of 

the vehicle and, as a result, the evidence found must be suppressed. 

{¶4} On November 27, 2019, an evidentiary hearing was held on Miles’s motion 

to suppress. The following evidence was presented during that hearing. 

{¶5} On July 14, 2019, at 9:38 p.m., Officer Adam Carter of the Newark Police 

Department effectuated a traffic stop of a 1994 Honda Civic for a turn signal violation. 

Terrance Cunningham was driving the car and Miles was the front seat passenger. Officer 

Carter called in the license plate and learned that neither occupant was the registered 

owner of the vehicle. Cunningham and Miles are married; however, neither had a valid 

driver license. 

{¶6} At approximately 9:40 p.m. Officer Carter obtained the social security 

numbers of the car’s occupants. He further had the driver operate the turn signal and 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00052 3 

verified that the driver’s side signal was not working. Officer Carter testified that it normally 

takes him ten to fifteen minutes to write a traffic citation. 

{¶7} At 9:41 p.m. Officer Carter radioed for a drug sniffing canine. At 9:43 p.m. 

Officer Jon Purtee arrives on the scene with his canine. At 9:46 p.m. the canine alerts for 

possible drugs in the car. After the canine alerted, Officer Carter searched the vehicle 

and found the methamphetamine. 

{¶8} By Judgment Entry filed December 12, 2019, the trial court denied the 

motion to suppress. Subsequently, Miles pled no contest to both counts with the 

understanding that she would appeal the suppression ruling. The parties agreed that the 

two counts merged because they involved the same drugs and the prosecution elected 

to proceed on the aggravated trafficking count. The court found Miles guilty of aggravated 

trafficking and imposed a mandatory prison sentence of two to three years, with 272 days 

of jail credits. 

Assignment of Error 

{¶9} Miles raises one Assignment of Error: 

{¶10} “I. APPELLANT'S FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO 

BE FREE OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE TRAFFIC

STOP WAS DELAYED TO ALLOW FOR A CANINE SEARCH OF THE VEHICLE.” 

Law and Analysis

STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW. 

{¶11} 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 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00052 4 

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, 652 N.E.2d 988 (1995); 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. 

ISSUE FOR APPEALLATE REVIEW: Whether the lawful detention for the traffic 

infraction became an unlawful detention when the officer decided to call for the use of a 

narcotics-detection dog to sniff around exterior of the vehicle. 

{¶12} The use of a drug detection dog does not constitute a “search” and an officer 

is not required, prior to a dog sniff, to establish either probable cause or a reasonable 

suspicion that drugs are concealed in a vehicle. See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 

409, 125 S.Ct. 834, 838, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 

707, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 2645, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983); State v. Carlson, 102 Ohio App.3d 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00052 5 

585, 594, 657 N.E.2d 591 (9th Dist. 1995); United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1106 

(5th Cir.1993). Further, if a trained narcotics dog alerts to the odor of drugs from a lawfully 

detained vehicle, an officer has probable cause to search the vehicle for contraband. 

United States v. Reed, 141 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 1998), (quoting United States v. Berry, 90 

F.3d 148, 153 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 999, 117 S.Ct. 497, 136 L.Ed.2d 389 

(1996)); accord, United States v. Hill, 195 F.3d 258, 273 (6th Cir.1999); United States v. 

Diaz, 25 F.3d 392, 394 (6th Cir. 1994); State v. French, 104 Ohio App.3d 740, 663 N.E.2d 

367 (12th Dist. 1995), abrogated on different grounds, City of Dayton v. Erickson, 76 

Ohio St.3d 3, 665 N.E.2d 1091 (1996). 

{¶13} A dog sniff, however, is a measure aimed at “detect[ing] evidence of 

ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40–41, 121 S.Ct. 

447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000). See also Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 

1416–1417, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). “Lacking the same close connection to roadway 

safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s 

traffic mission.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 356, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 

L.Ed.2d 492(2015). Further, a dog sniff cannot be justified on the basis of officer safety. 

Highway and officer safety are interests different in kind from the Government’s endeavor 

to detect crime in general or drug trafficking in particular. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 

U.S. at 356-357, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492. “The critical question, then, is not 

whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket...but whether 

conducting the sniff ‘prolongs’—i.e., adds time to—‘the stop’....” Rodriguez v. United 

States, 575 U.S. at 357, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00052 6 

{¶14} In the case at bar, the stop occurred at approximately 9:38 p.m. At 

approximately 9:41 p.m., Officer Carter requested a canine handler report to his location. 

The officer and the drug-sniffing dog arrived at approximately 9:43 p.m. At approximately 

9:46 p.m. the dog alerted on the car. Thus, eight minutes elapsed from the time the car 

was stopped until the canine alerted to possible drugs in the car. Officer Carter testified 

that it normally takes him ten to fifteen minutes to write a traffic citation. There is no 

evidence in the record that Officer Carter could have completed writing the traffic citations 

before 9:43 p.m. Nor is there evidence that Officer Carter could have completed issuing 

the traffic citations before 9:46 p.m., the time that the canine alerted on the car. Once the 

drug dog alerted to the vehicle, the police had probable cause to search that vehicle for 

contraband. 

{¶15} Accordingly, in the case at bar the canine sniff did not add time to the time 

necessary to complete issuing traffic citations for driving under suspension and a turn 

signal violation. In other words, the dog sniff did not add time to the traffic stop. Rodriguez 

v. United States, 575 U.S. at 357, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492. 

{¶16} No violation of Miles’s Fourth Amendment rights has been demonstrated. 

Therefore, we find the trial court correctly denied Miles’s motion to suppress evidence. 

{¶17} Miles’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled. 
Licking County, Case No. 2020 CA 00052 7 

{¶18} The judgment of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By Gwin, P.J., 

Wise, John, J., and 

Wise, Earle, J., concur