Court Opinion

ID: 9389036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 14:06:46.891673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:24.832788
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Morehead, 2023-Ohio-1314.]

STATE OF OHIO                    )                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                 )ss:                 NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF MEDINA                 )

STATE OF OHIO                                         C.A. No.      22CA0021-M

        Appellee

        v.                                            APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                      ENTERED IN THE
WESLEY J. MOREHEAD                                    COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                      COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO
        Appellant                                     CASE No.   21CR0681

                                DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: April 24, 2023

        CARR, Judge.

        {¶1}    Appellant, Wesley Morehead, appeals the judgment of the Medina County Court

of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

                                                 I.

        {¶2}    This matter arises out of an incident that occurred at Morehead’s Medina home on

the afternoon January 3, 2021. When the house of Morehead’s neighbor caught fire, police

evacuated two other houses that were in close proximity, one of which was Morehead’s. Upon

entering Morehead’s house, police discovered a marijuana growing operation in the basement.

Morehead was subsequently charged with one count of illegal cultivation of marijuana as well as

an attendant forfeiture specification pertaining to a gun found in his home.

        {¶3}    Morehead filed a motion to suppress on the basis that police violated his Fourth

Amendment rights when they entered his home. After holding a suppression hearing, the trial

court issued an order denying the motion. Morehead subsequently entered a plea of no contest and
                                                    2

the trial court found him guilty. The trial court ordered a presentence investigation report.

Thereafter, the trial court imposed a three-year community control sanction and ordered Morehead

to forfeit the gun in question.

        {¶4}    On appeal, Morehead raises one assignment of error.

                                                   II.

                                    ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

        THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY
        DENYING HIS MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE.

        {¶5}    In his sole assignment of error, Morehead contends that the trial court erred in

denying his motion to suppress. This Court disagrees.

        {¶6}    A motion to suppress evidence presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v.

Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. “When considering a motion to suppress,

the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve factual

questions and evaluate the credibility of witnesses.” Id., citing State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357,

366 (1992). Thus, a reviewing court “must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are

supported by competent, credible evidence.” Burnside at ¶ 8. “Accepting these facts as true, the

appellate court must then independently determine, without deference to the conclusion of the trial

court, whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” Id., citing State v. McNamara, 124

Ohio App.3d 706 (4th Dist.1997).

                                              Background

        {¶7}    As noted above, Morehead filed a motion to suppress on the basis that his

constitutional rights were violated when police forcibly entered his home on the afternoon of

January 3, 2021. After a suppression hearing, the trial court issued a journal entry denying
                                                  3

Morehead’s motion. In support of this conclusion, the trial court set forth the following factual

findings.

       {¶8}    On the afternoon of January 3, 2021, Sergeant Wagner and Officer Deeks of the

Medina Police Department responded to a call that a house was on fire on Sugarhouse Lane.

Sergeant Wagner’s training involved evacuating houses in a fire situation. Officer Deeks had

obtained a volunteer firefighter certificate approximately two years prior to the incident but the

certificate had expired at the time of the incident.

       {¶9}    Upon arriving at the scene, Officer Deeks observed a substantial house fire at 1013

Sugarhouse Lane. Officer Deeks immediately assisted in the evacuating of the residents of that

house. Thereafter, Officer Deeks began the process of evacuating the two houses that were located

on each side of the house that was on fire. Officer Deeks and Sergeant Wagner gave testimony

that it was standard procedure to evacuate the houses located on both sides of a burning house.

The officers identified a number of dangers created by a house fire. In addition to the concern of

the fire spreading, there are also a number of scenarios where a fire can cause explosions. Another

concern is that the smoke created by the fire can travel through the air and cause problems with

smoke inhalation for neighbors.

       {¶10} After making sure that no people remained in the burning house, Officer Deeks

went to the house located at 1005 Sugarhouse Lane and found that its occupants had gathered in

the driveway along with the occupants of the burning house. Officer Deeks told the occupants of

both houses to exit the driveway and walk to the street corner in order to avoid any dangers

associated with the fire. Officer Deeks then walked to Morehead’s house located at 1021

Sugarhouse Lane and pounded on the front door. Although no one answered the door, Officer

Deeks noticed a pickup truck parked in the driveway. At that point, Officer Deeks returned to the
                                                4

occupants of the other two houses and reemphasized the importance of walking to the street corner.

Officer Deeks also repositioned his vehicle.

       {¶11} Thereafter, Officer Deeks approached a neighbor and asked if he had a phone

number for the occupant of 1021 Sugarhouse Lane.1 The neighbor responded in the negative.

Officer Deeks contacted dispatch to run the plates on the truck parked in the driveway in hopes of

obtaining a phone number, but that effort was also unsuccessful. Officer Deeks again knocked on

the front door. While no one answered the door, Officer Deeks noticed a pit bull inside the house.

Officer Deeks proceeded to circle around the house to the back deck. When Officer Deeks peered

inside, he heard a radio playing but he did not see anyone. As Officer Deeks returned to the front

of the house, his body camera captured video of the house fire. The fire appeared to be expanding

as much more smoke was coming from the house than before.

       {¶12} After retrieving a dog snare, pry bar, and sledgehammer, Officer Deeks and

Sergeant Wagner pried open the front door of Morehead’s house. The officers yelled to see if

anyone was in the residence. There was no answer. Multiple officers assisted in removing the

dog from an upstairs bedroom. Officer Deeks and Sergeant Wagner then walked into the basement

to look for people. The officers were concerned that there might be someone who was sleeping,

hiding, or unconscious. The officers noticed that a portion of the basement was sectioned off with

a black plastic sheet. The officers could hear the sound of a fan coming from the sectioned-off

area and they noticed that the plastic sheet had a zipper. The officers unzipped the sheet to make

sure that there were no people behind it. While they did not find anyone behind the sheet, they

observed that the area was being used to grow marijuana. Based on these observations, the officers

       1
        The neighbor resided in the house located immediately to the right of Morehead’s house,
meaning the neighbor’s house was two houses away from the fire.
                                                    5

were able to obtain a search warrant to search the area where the marijuana was being grown. That

search gave rise to the charges in this case.

        {¶13} In denying the motion to suppress, the trial court concluded that the emergency aid

exception to the warrant requirement applied in this case. The trial court found that the dangers

associated with the house fire constituted a set of circumstances that justified a reasonable belief

on the part of the officers that entering the house was necessary in order to protect the people who

lived there.

                                                Discussion

        {¶14} Morehead’s chief argument on appeal is the officers’ decision to enter his home

could not be reasonably justified by the existence of exigent circumstances or the need to render

emergency aid. Morehead maintains that the evidence presented at the suppression hearing did

not support the conclusion that the fire presented a threat to his house or that there was someone

inside the home who required emergency aid.

        {¶15} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people from

unreasonable searches and seizures. The Ohio Constitution contains a similar provision. See

Article I, Section 14, Ohio Constitution. “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law’ that

searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Payton

v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980). State courts are required to exclude evidence obtained in

violation of this fundamental right. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961).

        {¶16} “There are a number of exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement,

including * * * the community-caretaking exception, which courts sometimes refer to as the

“‘emergency-aid exception’” or “‘exigent-circumstance exception.’” State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio

St.3d 325, 2012-Ohio-1008, ¶ 15. “The need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is
                                                6

justification for what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.” Dunn at ¶ 18,

quoting Wayne v. United States, 318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C.Cir.1963). The emergency aid exception

to the warrant requirement allows officers to enter a dwelling without a warrant and without

probable cause when they reasonably believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that a person

within is in need of immediate aid. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978).

       {¶17} To the extent Morehead contends that the trial court’s factual findings regarding

the dangers presented by the fire were not supported by competent, credible evidence, his argument

is not well-taken. Morehead points to Officer Deeks’ body camera footage as well as the officers’

testimony at the suppression hearing in support of his contention that the “potential” dangers

associated with house fires were not present in this case. Officer Deeks testified that upon

responding to scene it became immediately apparent that the house fire was “substantial[.]” A

review of Officer Deeks’ body camera video shows that he arrived to a frenzied situation where

the occupants of 1013 Sugarhouse Lane were making their way out of the burning house. The

footage makes clear that the house fire was significant, and the smoke was beginning to emanate

into the open air. The amount of smoke being released into the air increased considerably in a

matter of minutes. The video footage further shows that the wind was pushing the smoke toward

Morehead’s house. By the time that the officers pried open the front door, smoke from the house

fire could be seen in the air above Morehead’s house. Accordingly, Morehead has failed to

demonstrate on appeal that the trial court’s findings were not supported by competent, credible

evidence.

       {¶18} Under these circumstances, where the State presented specific and articulable facts

supporting the conclusion that entry into Morehead’s house was warranted, the trial court did not

err in concluding that the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement was applicable in
                                                 7

this case. Based on the severity of the house fire, it was reasonable for the officers to ensure that

the neighboring houses were evacuated. Although no one answered when Officer Deeks knocked

on Morehead’s door, there were a number of facts indicating that someone might be inside the

house, including the radio playing and the truck parked in the driveway. Thus, it was reasonable

for the officers to take measures to ensure that no one was inside. See id. It follows that the trial

court did not err in determining that the emergency aid exception was applicable in this case.2

       {¶19} Morehead’s assignment of error is overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶20} Morehead’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Medina County

Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                                Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

       2
        Morehead further argues in his merit brief that the emergency aid exception as applied to
animals was not applicable in this case. Because this Court has concluded that the officers had a
reasonable basis to ensure that there were no people inside Morehead’s home, we decline to
address whether the emergency aid exception as applied to animals was applicable in this case.
                                                8

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

       Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                                     DONNA J. CARR
                                                     FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, P. J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

HECTOR G. MARTINEZ, JR., Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

S. FORREST THOMPSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and VINCENT V. VIGLUICCI, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.