[Cite as State v. Snell, 2022-Ohio-3755.]

COURT OF APPEALS

LICKING COUNTY, OHIO

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO

Plaintiff-Appellee

-vsDOMINIK SNELL

Defendant-Appellant

JUDGES:

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.

Hon. John W. Wise, J.

Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. 

Case No. 2022 CA 00001

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common 

Pleas, Case No. 2020 CR 00355

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 20, 2022

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

ROBERT N. ABDALLA BRIAN A. SMITH

ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR BRIAN A. SMITH LAW FIRM LLC

20 South Second Street 123 South Miller Road, Suite 250

Newark, Ohio 43055 Fairlawn, Ohio 44333
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00001 2

Wise, J.

{¶1} Appellant Dominik Snell appeals the judgment of the Licking County Court 

of Common Pleas denying the motion to suppress evidence. Appellee is State of Ohio. 

The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On July 23, 2020, Appellee was indicted on one count of Aggravated 

Possession of a Controlled Substance in violation of R.C. §2925.11(A)(C)(1) and one 

count of Possessing a Defaced Firearm in violation of R.C. §2923.201(A)(2).

{¶3} On August 11, 2020, Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to both charges.

{¶4} On September 8, 2020, Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress, arguing the 

traffic stop violated Appellant’s Constitutional protections and that law enforcement 

impermissibly extended the traffic stop.

{¶5} On September 18, 2020, Appellee filed a Memorandum in Opposition of 

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.

{¶6} On September 29, 2020, Appellant filed a Response to State’s 

Memorandum in Opposition of Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.

{¶7} On October 19, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant’s Motion to 

Suppress granting Appellant’s Motion to Suppress.

{¶8} The State subsequently appealed the trial court’s decision granting the 

Motion to Suppress.

{¶9} On February 19, 2021, this Court reversed the trial court’s decision to grant 

Appellant’s Motion to Suppress, remanding the case back to the trial court.

{¶10} On April 7, 2021, Appellant filed a Renewed Motion to Suppress.
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00001 3

{¶11} On May 11, 2021, Appellee filed a Response to Appellant’s Renewed 

Motion to Suppress.

{¶12} On May 14, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant’s Renewed 

Motion to Suppress.

{¶13} At the hearing, Officer Burris testified that on July 15, 2020, while working 

in his capacity as a police officer, he followed Appellant’s vehicle as it left a house which 

was under surveillance for drug activity. While stopped at a traffic light, Appellant initiated 

his turn signal and then turned right when the light changed to green.

{¶14} Officer Burris initiated a traffic stop on Appellant for failing to signal a turn 

at least 100 feet before an intersection.

{¶15} Officers Burris and Carter approached the vehicle and asked for license, 

registration, and proof of insurance. Appellant did not have his driver’s license, so Officer 

Burris requested his Social Security number. Officer Burris requested permission to 

search the vehicle; Appellant refused.

{¶16} A canine unit then arrived at the scene. Officer Stephens ran Appellant’s 

information through the computer to determine the identity of Appellant and if Appellant 

had a valid driver’s license. 

{¶17} While Officer Stephens was checking Appellant’s information, Officer Burris 

walked the canine around Appellant’s vehicle. Appellant’s information came back that 

Appellant had a suspended license. At this point the canine alerted Officer Burris that 

narcotics were present in the vehicle.

{¶18} Officers then searched Appellant’s vehicle. Inside the vehicle officers 

located a lock box containing a bag of methamphetamine and a loaded firearm.
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00001 4

{¶19} On June 14, 2021, the trial court denied Appellant’s Renewed Motion to 

Suppress.

{¶20} On December 8, 2021, Appellant entered a plea of no contest to the 

indictment.

{¶21} The trial court sentenced Appellant to four-to-six years in prison on Count 

One and one hundred and eighty days in jail on Count Two to run concurrently.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶22} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. He herein raises the following 

Assignment of Error:

{¶23} “I. BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDINGS OF FACT WERE NOT 

SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, THE TRIAL COURT INCORRECTLY APPLIED THE 

LEGAL STANDARD IN APPELLANT’S CASE, AND THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY 

DECIDED THE ULTIMATE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED AS PART OF APPELLANT’S 

RENEWED MOTION TO SUPPRESS. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING 

APPELLANT’S RENEWED MOTION TO SUPPRESS, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S 

RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AS GUARANTEED 

BY THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.”

I.

{¶24} In Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error, Appellant argues the trial court 

erred in denying Appellant’s Renewed Motion to Suppress. We disagree.

{¶25} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, 

Article I, Ohio Constitution, prohibit the government from conducting unreasonable 
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00001 5

searches and seizures of persons or their property. See Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 

1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889; State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87, 565 N.E.2d 

1271 (1991).

{¶26} Appellate review of a motion to suppress is a mixed question of law and 

fact. State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d 71, ¶8. During 

a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and, as such, is in 

the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate witness credibility. State v. 

Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148, 154, 1996-Ohio-134, 661 N.E.2d 1030. A reviewing court is 

bound to accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, 

credible evidence. State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142,145, 675 N.E.2d 1268 (4th

Dist.1996). Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court must independently 

determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court’s conclusions, whether 

the trial court’s decision meets the applicable legal standard. State v. Williams, 86 Ohio 

App.3d 37, 41, 619 N.E.2d 1141 (4th Dist.1993), overruled on other grounds, State v. 

Gunther, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 04CA25, 2005-Ohio-3492, ¶16.

{¶27} Three methods exist to challenge a trial court’s ruling on a motion to 

suppress. First, appellant may challenge the trial court’s findings of facts. State v. 

Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 437 N.E.2d 583 (1982). “A reviewing court is bound to 

accept those findings of fact if supported by competent, credible evidence.” State v. Curry, 

95 Ohio App.3d 93, 96, 641 N.E.2d 1172 (8th Dist.1994). Second, appellant may argue 

the trial court failed to apply the appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In 

that case, the appellate court can reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. 

Williams at 41. Third, appellant may argue the trial court incorrectly decided the ultimate 
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00001 6

issue raised in the motion to suppress. When addressing the third type of challenge, an 

appellate court must independently determine, without deference to the trial court’s 

conclusion, whether the facts meet the appropriate legal standard in the given case 

(Citation omitted). Curry at 96.

Impermissible Delay of Traffic Stop

{¶28} First, Appellant argues the trial court erred as their findings of fact were 

incorrect. Specifically, the trial court found Officer Burris asked Officer Stephens to check 

the defendant’s information. Appellant alleges that the video shows no such check took 

place.

{¶29} The record shows that Officer Burris relayed Appellant’s information to 

Officer Stephens. Officer Burris then inquired about the contents of the vehicle. Appellant 

argues Officer Burris had not received a response back from officer Stephens yet so was 

not allowed to ask any questions of Appellant. However, the test, as set forth in State v. 

Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 240, 685 N.E.2d 762, 767 (1997), is:

When a police officer’s objective justification to continue detention of 

a person stopped for a traffic violation for the purpose of searching the 

person’s vehicle is not related to the purpose of the original stop, and when 

that continued detention is not based on any articulable facts giving rise to 

a suspicion of some illegal activity justifying an extension of the detention, 

the continued detention to conduct a search constitutes an illegal seizure.

{¶30} An officer may briefly extend a traffic stop to inquire about the presence of 

illegal drugs or weapons. Id. However, the officer must ascertain reasonably articulable 

facts giving rise to a suspicion of criminal activity while inquiring to justify a more in-depth 
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00001 7

investigation. Id. Therefore, “[t]he 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. 348, 135 

S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015).

{¶31} In other words, a motorist may be detained beyond the time frame 

necessary to conduct the stop for the purposes of the traffic violation when “additional 

facts are encountered that give rise to a reasonable, articulable suspicion [of criminal 

activity] beyond that which prompted the initial stop[.]” State v. Smith, 117 Ohio App.3d 

278, 285, 690 N.E.2d 567 (1st Dist.1996) citing State v. Myers, 63 Ohio App.3d 765, 771, 

580 N.E.2d 61 (2nd Dist.1990).

{¶32} The United States Supreme Court held an officer may not prolong a traffic 

stop to perform a drug sniff if the “overall duration of the stop remains reasonable in 

relation to the duration of other stops involving similar circumstances.” Rodriguez at 1616. 

However, reasonableness depends on what the police actually do and how they do it. Id.

{¶33} In State v. Hall, 2nd Dist. Darke No. 2016-CA-13, 2017-Ohio-2682, 90 

N.E.3d 276, officers confirmed the defendant’s identification, then did nothing to process 

the traffic stop while awaiting the canine unit to arrive. The Second District Court of 

Appeals found that the officer did nothing for eight minutes to process the traffic stop, and 

that the officer’s inaction was not reasonable or diligent. Id. The officer unreasonably 

prolonged the stop, and the evidence was properly suppressed.

{¶34} In the case sub judice, the record shows Officer Stephens was processing 

Appellant’s information while Officer Burris briefly inquired of the contents of the vehicle 

and walked the canine around the outside of the vehicle. The canine indicated the 
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00001 8

presence of narcotics. This provided Officer Burris with reasonable suspicion based upon 

specific, articulable facts to extend the traffic stop. Officer Burris’s mere questioning of 

the contents of the vehicle while Officer Stephens processed Appellant’s information is 

supported by competent, credible information and did not impermissibly extend the stop. 

Traffic Stop

{¶35} Appellant also argues that the trial court impermissibly found the traffic stop 

to be valid. Appellant contends the record does not show a traffic violation.

{¶36} Traffic stops based upon observation of a traffic violation are constitutionally 

permissible. Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 11-12, 1996-Ohio-431, 665 N.E.2d 

1091. Any traffic violation may form a sufficient basis upon which to stop a vehicle. State 

v. Bangoura, 5th Dist. Licking No. 08 CA 95, 2009-Ohio-3339, ¶14.

{¶37} R.C. §4511.39(A), in pertinent part, states:

No person shall turn a vehicle * * * unless and until such person has 

exercised due care to ascertain that the movement can be made with 

reasonable safety nor without giving an appropriate signal[.]

* * * 

[A] signal of intention to turn or move right or left shall be given 

continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the 

vehicle or trackless trolley before turning[.]

{¶38} The record shows Officer Burris behind Appellant’s vehicle. Appellant’s 

vehicle is stopped at a red traffic light. When the traffic light turns green, Appellant 

engages his turn signal and makes a right-hand turn. Officer Burris then initiates a traffic 

stop due to a violation of R.C. §4511.39(A). The statute requires a “signal of intention to 
Licking County, Case No. 2022 CA 00001 9

turn” must be continuous from not less than one hundred feet prior to the vehicle turning. 

Appellant’s turn signal clearly was not continuous from at least one hundred feet prior to 

the vehicle turning to the time when the vehicle turned. 

{¶39} Under the totality of the circumstances, we find that the officer had 

reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop Appellant’s vehicle based on his observation 

of a traffic offense. The trial court therefore did not err in overruling Appellant’s Motion to 

Suppress.

{¶40} Appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is overruled.

{¶41} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Licking County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.

By: Wise, J.

Gwin, P. J., and

Delaney, J., concur.

JWW/br 1013