Court Opinion

ID: 9930615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 14:06:40.459343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:48.567905
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Walker, 2024-Ohio-303.]

                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                      HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 STATE OF OHIO,                             :      APPEAL NO. C-230339
                                                   TRIAL NO. B-2206032
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                  :
                                                     O P I N I O N.
    vs.                                     :

 TROY WALKER,                               :

       Defendant-Appellant.                 :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 31, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

William F. Oswall, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant.
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BERGERON, Presiding Judge.

       {¶1}    Through a motion to suppress, defendant-appellant Troy Walker sought

to exclude evidence of a firearm recovered by police from his pocket during a traffic

stop by challenging the officers’ grounds for the traffic stop and for asking him to step

out of the vehicle. Having lost that argument, he tries a new approach on appeal,

challenging the officers’ grounds for conducting a pat-down search on him, which

uncovered the firearm. But because he failed to raise that argument below, we review

the pat-down issue only for plain error. Finding no such error, we overrule his sole

assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court denying suppression of

the firearm.

                                           I.

       {¶2}    During police surveillance of multiple hotels at which officers suspected

ongoing drug, prostitution, and “some violent” activity, an undercover officer observed

a car driven by Mr. Walker repeatedly moving in and out of a parking spot at one hotel.

Suspecting the car’s involvement in drug activity, he notified other officers about the

vehicle. Another undercover officer observed the driver commit multiple traffic

violations including a turn signal violation, speeding, and reckless operation. A third

officer initiated a traffic stop and noticed a strong smell of raw marijuana emanating

from the vehicle as she approached it. She asked the driver, Mr. Walker, to step out

and inquired about the smell. He admitted to possessing marijuana in the car and

acknowledged that he and his passenger had recently consumed marijuana. But he

also produced his medical marijuana card, which the officer confirmed was valid.

       {¶3}    Soon after, the undercover officer who observed Mr. Walker’s car at the

hotel arrived and asked him to step behind the vehicle to perform a pat-down search.

                                           2
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

He felt a “hard box” object in his right pants pocket and asked him about it. Mr. Walker

insisted, “It’s not mine.” As he started to move his hands, the officer instructed him

not to move, unzipped the pocket, and pulled out a firearm. The officer testified that

he initiated the pat-down after observing Mr. Walker repeatedly looking at the vehicle

and making “movements,” raising suspicion that he might try to flee in the vehicle.

Further, when he asked Mr. Walker to move behind the police car before the pat-down

so that they would be out of the roadway, he saw something heavy dragging down his

pants below his waist as he moved. Combined with the hotel surveillance and his view

that “drugs and guns often come together,” these observations led the officer to suspect

that Mr. Walker carried a firearm and to conduct the pat-down. The state later

indicted him on three felony gun charges: Carrying Concealed Weapons, in violation

of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), Having Weapons While Under Disability, in violation of R.C.

2923.13(A)(2), and Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle, in violation of

R.C. 2923.16(B).

       {¶4}   Mr. Walker filed a motion to suppress, claiming officers violated Article

I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the U.S. Constitution by searching the vehicle without probable cause, but he did not

challenge the pat-down search that uncovered the firearm. During cross-examination

of the officers at the suppression hearing, defense counsel briefly asked one officer

whether the pat-down was performed on suspicion of any crime, but he did not cross-

examine the officer who performed the pat-down. Near the end of the hearing, the

court asked defense counsel whether the firearm was found on Mr. Walker’s person

and not in the vehicle, which counsel confirmed. The court asked counsel whether

that changed his argument, and counsel said, “No. My argument is that there was no

                                           3
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

reasonable grounds to even get him out of the car in the first place.” The trial court

denied the motion in a brief entry, finding “the traffic stop was lawful, the defendant

was not removed from the car illegally, and the Terry search was reasonable under the

totality of the circumstances,” referencing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20

L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Mr. Walker pleaded no contest to the gun charges, and the trial

court imposed a sentence of community control. He now challenges the pat-down

search on appeal, and the state contends he waived the issue by failing to challenge it

at the suppression hearing.

                                          II.

       {¶5}   At the outset, we conclude that Mr. Walker failed to raise the

constitutionality of the pat-down search under Terry and its progeny in the trial court

below. Generally, when a defendant fails to object or raise an issue below, the issue is

not preserved for appeal, and a reviewing court can only reverse on plain error

grounds. State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); Crim.R.

52(B); see State v. Thomas, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120561, 2013-Ohio-5386, ¶ 33

(assessing Fourth Amendment search issue only for plain error after defendant

withdrew motion to suppress in the trial court). When a party “ ‘intentional[ly]

relinquish[es] or abandon[s] [] a known right,’ ” though, that issue is fully waived and

cannot be considered on appeal, even for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.

725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.

458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); see State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385,

2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 20. Holding that he failed to raise the issue, rather

than intentionally relinquishing it, we review the trial court’s judgment on the Terry

pat-down for plain error.
                                           4
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

          {¶6}   Accordingly, Mr. Walker must show that an error occurred, that the

error was plain, meaning “obvious,” and that the error affected his “substantial rights,”

meaning it “affected the outcome of the trial.” Barnes at 27; Crim.R. 52(B). To show

the error affected the outcome, the defendant must “demonstrate [] a reasonable

probability that but for [the error], the outcome of the trial would have been different.”

State v. Mounts, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210608, 2023-Ohio-3861, ¶ 48-52

(synthesizing recent Supreme Court of Ohio plain error cases); see State v. Bailey, 171

Ohio St.3d 486, 2022-Ohio-4407, 218 N.E.3d 858, ¶ 8; State v. Brunson, 171 Ohio

St.3d 384, 2022-Ohio-4299, 218 N.E.3d 765, ¶ 25; State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605,

2022-Ohio-1556, 200 N.E.3d 1048, ¶ 22. We will reverse the trial court’s judgment

based on plain error only “under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a

manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 97, 372 N.E.2d 804

(1978).

          {¶7}   The U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to the Fourth

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s general prohibition on warrantless searches in

Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889.

          Under Terry, a limited protective search of the detainee's person for

          concealed weapons is justified only when the officer has reasonably

          concluded that “the individual whose suspicious behavior he is

          investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the

          officer or to others * * *.” [Terry at 24.] * * * “Where a police officer,

          during an investigative stop, has a reasonable suspicion that an

          individual is armed based on the totality of the circumstances, the

          officer may initiate a protective search for the safety of himself and

                                              5
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       others.” State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988),

       paragraph two of the syllabus.

State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405, 408-409, 618 N.E.2d 162 (1993).

       {¶8}    The trial court’s conclusion that the officer’s Terry search of Mr. Walker

was reasonable does not constitute plain error. The officer’s observation of a heavy

object weighing down Mr. Walker’s pants as he walked is particularly persuasive. See

State v. Billups, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150500, 2017-Ohio-4309, ¶ 12 (holding a

Terry frisk reasonable in part because the suspect had a bulge in his pants pocket,

among other factors); State v. Rogers, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210666, 2022-Ohio-

4535, ¶ 31. His additional suspicions regarding Mr. Walker’s movements and glances

toward the vehicle contributed to the reasonableness of the officer’s suspicion that Mr.

Walker was presently dangerous to those around him. See State v. Olagbemiro, 1st

Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-170451 and C-170452, 2018-Ohio-3540, ¶ 20.

       {¶9}    Mr. Walker relies on two cases where this court held a Terry search

unreasonable. First, a Terry pat-down was unreasonable where officers received a call

about two people trying to get into a business, and the defendant initially distanced

himself from a responding officer, placed his hands in his pockets, and acted

nervously. State v. Showes, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180552, 2020-Ohio-650, ¶ 15.

Second, a pat-down was unreasonable where officers received a shot-spotter alert but

did not hear shots, arrived in the “high crime” source area after dark five minutes later,

located a man and a woman loading children into a car, did not observe the man make

concerning gestures, and did not observe a bulge in any pocket. State v. Henson, 1st

Dist. Hamilton No. C-210244, 2022-Ohio-1571, ¶ 25-31. By contrast, here, the officer

observed a heavy object on Mr. Walker’s person weighing down his pants. In the

                                            6
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

context of the traffic stop, that observation is enough for us to conclude there was no

obvious error in the trial court’s determination of the reasonableness of the pat-down.

       {¶10} And “when an officer is conducting a lawful pat-down search for

weapons and discovers an object on the suspect’s person which the officer, through his

or her sense of touch, reasonably believes could be a weapon, the officer may seize the

object as long as the search stays within the bounds of [Terry].” Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d

at 416, 618 N.E.2d 162. Because the trial court’s determination that the officer stayed

within the bounds of Terry did not constitute plain error, it did not err in denying the

motion to suppress.

                                    *      *      *

       {¶11} Having overruled his sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment

of the trial court denying Mr. Walker’s motion to suppress.

                                                                   Judgment affirmed.

CROUSE and WINKLER, JJ., concur.

Please note:

       The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                           7