Court Opinion

ID: 9901952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 18:08:47.012076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:41.928322
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Gibbs, 2023-Ohio-4223.]

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

STATE OF OHIO                                        C.A. No.       30548

        Appellee

        v.                                           APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                     ENTERED IN THE
WILLIAM GIBBS                                        COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                     COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
        Appellant                                    CASE No.   CR 21 06 1972

                                  DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: November 22, 2023

        STEVENSON, Judge.

        {¶1}     Appellant, William Gibbs, appeals from the judgment of the Summit County Court

of Common Pleas denying his motion to suppress. We affirm as the trooper lawfully observed an

ammunition cartridge in plain view and then, for the safety of others and officer safety, conducted

a further search of Mr. Gibbs’ vehicle after he gave uncoerced statements that he had a firearm in

his truck.

                                                I.

        {¶2}     On May 9, 2021, Ohio State Highway Patrol (“OSHP”) Trooper Jason Fowler was

parked in the median on I-77 when he observed an F250 pickup truck, later determined to be driven

by Mr. Gibbs, traveling 78 mph in a 65-mph zone. Trooper Fowler testified that the truck almost

struck another vehicle and that he observed the truck commit two marked lane violations. Trooper

Fowler initiated a traffic stop after observing the two marked lane violations. The validity of the

traffic stop is not at issue on appeal.
                                                 2

       {¶3}    The traffic stop occurred at night on I-77. It was dark and the area was not well lit.

For safety reasons, Trooper Fowler patted-down Mr. Gibbs and placed him in the back of the

cruiser. Once inside the cruiser, Trooper Fowler immediately read Mr. Gibbs his Miranda rights.

Trooper Fowler described Mr. Gibbs’ initial demeanor as "normal.”

       {¶4}    OSHP Trooper Adam Knowles was the secondary officer on the scene as he arrived

after Trooper Fowler initiated the traffic stop. Trooper Knowles’ assistance included watching

traffic, so he “could call out if we were going [to] get hit or not[,]” and walking around looking

inside the truck. When looking inside the truck’s windows with a flashlight, Trooper Knowles

“saw a loose nine millimeter cartridge on the floor.” Trooper Knowles testified that the

ammunition cartridge was on the passenger’s side floor.

       {¶5}    It is Mr. Gibbs’ position that his constitutional rights were violated when Trooper

Knowles leaned through the truck’s open windows when looking inside. Trooper Knowles

testified that he neither entered nor leaned through the truck’s windows when looking inside the

vehicle.

       {¶6}    After learning that Trooper Knowles observed a loose ammunition cartridge on the

truck’s floor, and after advising Mr. Gibbs of his Miranda rights, Trooper Fowler asked Mr. Gibbs

if there was a firearm inside the truck. According to Trooper Fowler, Mr. Gibbs became “more

nervous” as he talked about going “into the vehicle to do a protective sweep for the gun.” Trooper

Fowler was going to conduct a protective sweep for the officers’ safety as well as the safety of the

community. Trooper Fowler also questioned Mr. Gibbs about a digital scale seen inside the truck.

       {¶7}    Upon further questioning, Mr. Gibbs disclosed to Trooper Fowler that he had an

unloaded firearm in the side water-bottle holder of his backpack. The backpack was located on

the front passenger seat of the truck. Trooper Fowler testified that he did not believe the firearm
                                                 3

was unloaded considering the loose ammunition cartridge found on the floor, Mr. Gibbs’ change

in demeanor, and Mr. Gibbs changing his story that “he didn’t have a gun, then he said he did[.]”

       {¶8}    Trooper Fowler located a loaded firearm in the backpack. Drugs were also found

in the truck. At the suppression hearing, neither Mr. Gibbs nor the State presented testimony as to

the continued search of the truck and the discovery of the drugs.

       {¶9}     Mr. Gibbs was charged with aggravated trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C.

2925.03(A)(2)(C)(1)(f), a felony of the first degree with a major drug offender specification;

aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(1)(e), a felony of the first

degree with a major drug offender specification; trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound in

violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)(C)(9)(h), a felony of the first degree; possession of a fentanyl-

related compound in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(11)(g), a felony of the first degree;

trafficking in cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)(C)(4)(f), a felony of the first degree,

possession of cocaine in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(4)(e), a felony of the first degree;

improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle in violation of R.C. 2923.16(B)(I), a felony of the

fourth degree with criminal forfeiture specifications; and receiving stolen property in violation of

R.C. 2913.51(A)(C), a felony of the fourth degree. The State subsequently dismissed the major

drug offender specification.

       {¶10} Mr. Gibbs filed a motion to suppress all statements and evidence from the May 9,

2021 traffic stop. After an oral hearing was held, the trial court denied Mr. Gibbs’ motion to

suppress. Mr. Gibbs then pleaded no contest to the charges.

       {¶11} The trial court found Mr. Gibbs guilty of all charges and sentenced him according

to law. This appeal followed. Mr. Gibbs appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his motion to

suppress, asserting two assignments of error for review.
                                                 4

                                                II.

                              ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. GIBBS’ MOTION TO
       SUPPRESS, THEREBY VIOLATING HIS RIGHT TO BE SECURE FROM
       AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FOURTH
       AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
       CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 OF THE OHIO
       CONSTITUTION.

       {¶12} Mr. Gibbs argues in his first assignment of error that, in denying his motion to

suppress, the trial court violated his right to be secure from an unreasonable search and seizure

under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I,

Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. We disagree.

       {¶13} The Ohio Supreme Court has stated:

       Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact.
       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. Consequently, an appellate court must accept the trial
       court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence.
       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.

(Citations omitted.) State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. Pursuant to

Burnside, “[o]nce this Court has determined that the trial court’s factual findings are supported by

the evidence, we consider the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo.” State v. Iloba, 9th Dist.

Wayne No. 20AP0030, 2021-Ohio-3700, ¶ 7, citing Burnside at ¶ 8.

       {¶14} In denying Mr. Gibbs’ motion to suppress, the trial court concluded that Trooper

Knowles acted reasonably by walking around the truck and looking inside. The trial court found

that the totality of the circumstances did not support a constitutional violation and that Trooper

Knowles did not manipulate the window or alter anything in the truck when he looked into the
                                                  5

vehicle. The trial court’s decision was based on the troopers’ testimony at the suppression hearing

and the dash and cruiser cam videos from Trooper Fowlers’ cruiser, admitted as Exhibit 1 at the

suppression hearing. In assessing the credibility of the witnesses, the trial court found that Trooper

Knowles’ testimony was credible and it accepted Trooper Knowles’ version of the facts. The trial

court was in the best place to evaluate the trooper’s credibility. See State v. Lee, 9th Dist. Summit

No. 29597, 2020-Ohio-4970, ¶ 16. “This Court will not second-guess the trial court regarding

matters of witness credibility.” State v. Gaines, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 00CA008298, 2004-Ohio-

3407, ¶ 35, citing State v. Hopfer, 112 Ohio App.3d 521, 548 (2d Dist.1996).

       {¶15} Accepting the trial court’s findings of fact as true, this Court must independently

consider “whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard.” Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152,

2003-Ohio-5372, at ¶ 8. This Court must independently consider whether Mr. Gibbs’ rights under

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section

14 of the Ohio Constitution, were violated.

       {¶16} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states

through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Accord Ohio

Constitution, Article I, Section 14. Both generally require a warrant or probable cause plus exigent

circumstances before conducting a search. Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 638 (2002). “[A]

search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is ‘per se unreasonable * * *

subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.’” Schneckloth v.

Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973), quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967).

The State bears the burden of establishing that one of the exceptions applies. State v. Kessler, 53

Ohio St.2d 204, 207 (1978).
                                                  6

                                       Plain View Exception

       {¶17} One exception to the warrant requirement is the plain view exception. State v.

Williams, 55 Ohio St.2d 82, 84 (1978). The plain view exception “is grounded on the proposition

that once police are lawfully in a position to observe an item first-hand, its owner’s privacy interest

in that item is lost * * *.” Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. 765, 771 (1983). Evidence may be seized

under the plain view exception if it is shown that the police are lawfully in a position to observe

the item firsthand; the police inadvertently discovered the object; and, if it was immediately

apparent that the item was incriminating. State v. Halczyszak, 25 Ohio St.3d 301, 303 (1996).

       {¶18} The validity of the traffic stop is not at issue in this appeal. Additionally, no

arguments have been raised as to whether the troopers inadvertently discovered the incriminating

evidence or whether it was immediately apparent that the item was incriminating. Rather, at issue

on appeal is whether Trooper Knowles crossed the threshold of the truck’s open windows when

looking inside the vehicle. It is undisputed that, provided Trooper Knowles did not cross the

threshold of the truck’s windows, he could lawfully walk around the vehicle and look inside.

       {¶19} Upon review, this Court concludes that the trial court’s findings of fact are

supported by competent, credible evidence. See Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372,

at ¶ 8. Trooper Knowles testified at the suppression hearing that he did not enter or lean into the

passenger or driver’s side windows of the truck. Trooper Knowles testified:

       A.      I did a plain view search of the vehicle. * * *

                                                ***

       A.      I walked around the vehicle and looked inside the window.

       Q.      Were you able to see anything?

       A.      I was.
                                                  7

       Q.      What did you see?

       A.      I saw a loose nine millimeter cartridge on the floor.

                                                ***

       Q.      Did you enter the vehicle during that search?

       A.      No.

                                                ***

       Q.      At any time did you lean through that window of the vehicle?

       A.      No.

       Q.      You did not?

       A.      No.

When asked whether Trooper Knowles broke the barrier and entered the truck’s windows, Trooper

Fowler testified “I didn’t see him do that. I did not see that.”

       {¶20} The trial court found that the dash cam video “does not conclusively support either

party’s version of the facts.” The court found that it is unclear from the video whether Trooper

Knowles exceeds the threshold of the truck’s window or whether Trooper Knowles merely leans

over the windshield and looks through the windshield into the vehicle. “Without clear evidence to

the contrary,” the trial court found “that Trooper Knowles’ testimony that he did not enter the

vehicle during the search was credible and [it accepted] Trooper Knowles’ version of the facts.”

       {¶21} As previously noted, the plain view exception is one exception to the warrant

requirement. Williams, 55 Ohio St.2d at 84. At issue in this appeal is whether Trooper Knowles

lawfully observed the ammunition cartridge. If Trooper Knowles was lawfully able to observe the

ammunition cartridge firsthand, the plain view exception applies.
                                                 8

         {¶22} Trooper Knowles testified that he did not lean into or enter the truck’s windows

when looking inside. Trooper Fowler testified that he did not see Trooper Knowles lean into or

enter the truck’s windows when looking in the vehicle. The trial court found the troopers’

testimony credible. The trial court also found, because it is unclear in the video if Trooper Knowles

crossed the threshold of the window or whether Trooper Knowles was leaning over the windshield

to look through the windshield and into the vehicle, that the dash cam video did not support either

party.

         {¶23} Accepting the trial court’s findings as true, and applying the law to the facts, we

conclude that Trooper Knowles lawfully observed the ammunition cartridge and the plain view

exception applies.

                   Concern for the Safety of the Officers or Others Exception

         {¶24} Mr. Gibbs further argues in his first assignment of error that, once the ammunition

cartridge was found, his constitutional rights were violated when he was asked whether a firearm

was inside the vehicle and the troopers conducted a search for the firearm. We disagree.

         {¶25} Another exception to the warrant requirement is when an officer has a concern for

the safety of the officer or others. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the United States Supreme

Court held that a police officer may conduct a brief, warrantless search of an individual’s person

for weapons if the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the “individual whose

suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the

officer or to others[.]” Id. at 24. The court extended its precedent in Terry to protective searches

of automobiles in Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), holding that;

         the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas
         in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer
         possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken
         together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the
                                                  9

       officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain
       immediate control of the weapons.

Id. at 1049, citing Terry at 21. The Long court further stated that “protection of police and others

can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger,

that roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and that danger

may raise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding the suspect.” Id. at 1049.

       {¶26} In determining whether a protective search is justified, courts apply an objective

standard to determine if the “facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search

‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate[.]’” State

v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 178-179 (1988), quoting Terry at 21-22.          Applying this objective

standard, courts review the totality of the circumstances “through the eyes of the reasonable and

prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” State v. Andrews, 57

Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88 (1991), citing United States v. Hall, 525 F.2d 857, 859 (D.C.Cir.1976).

       {¶27} Trooper Fowler testified that Mr. Gibbs became “extremely nervous” when

Trooper Knowles was looking in the truck windows. According to Trooper Fowler, Mr. Gibbs

“wasn’t like that when I first talked to him and I had him out of the car. Once he seen Trooper

Knowles, he did become nervous.” Mr. Gibbs previously told Trooper Fowler that he did not have

a CCW. In light of Mr. Gibbs’ change in demeanor and the discovery of the ammunition cartridge,

Trooper Fowler became concerned that there was a firearm in the truck. Trooper Fowler “wasn’t

confident that [Mr. Gibbs] didn’t have a gun in the vehicle, so [he] wanted to make sure before

[he] let him go.” Trooper Fowler testified that “[i]f they’re not supposed to be carrying a gun and

he goes down the road and shoots somebody, then it comes back to me.” Trooper Fowler further

testified that he was concerned for officer safety and the concern that “[i]f they have a gun and

pull it out on us and shoot us.”
                                                10

       {¶28} Once the ammunition cartridge was found in plain view, and based on his

experience and interaction with Mr. Gibbs, Trooper Fowler testified that he had safety concerns.

In light of Trooper Fowlers’ safety concerns, he questioned Mr. Gibbs about whether a firearm

was inside the truck. The record establishes that Trooper Fowler advised Mr. Gibbs of his Miranda

rights as soon as Mr. Gibbs was placed in the back of the police cruiser. Mr. Gibbs subsequently

told Trooper Fowler, after being advised of his Miranda rights, that there was a firearm in the side

water bottle holder of his backpack. Based on the totality of the circumstances, “through the eyes

of the reasonable and prudent police officer”, we conclude that the trooper had a valid safety

concern. Andrews at 87-88. In light of the trooper’s safety concern, there was no violation of Mr.

Gibbs’ constitutional rights when he was asked whether a firearm was inside the truck and the

trooper conducted a search for the firearm.

                   Search of the Truck After the Discovery of the Firearm

       {¶29} Mr. Gibbs lastly argues in his first assignment of error that his constitutional rights

were violated when a full warrantless search of his truck occurred after the discovery of the

firearm. This argument was not developed in Mr. Gibbs’ motion to suppress or at the suppression

hearing. The parties did not address or argue this issue at the suppression hearing and the trial

court’s ruling did not address a continued search of the truck and the discovery of the drugs. “This

Court will not address arguments for the first time on appeal.” State v. Lee, 9th Dist. Summit No.

29597, 2020-Ohio-4970, ¶ 15, citing State v. Robinson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 28488, 2017-Ohio-

7380, ¶ 12. To preserve a suppression challenge for appeal, a defendant must “develop [his]

argument in his motion to suppress or at the [suppression] hearing.” State v. Keagle, 9th Dist.

Summit No. 29045, 2019-Ohio-3975, ¶ 12. Because Mr. Gibbs did not preserve this argument in
                                                 11

the lower court, he is precluded from raising it on appeal. See id., citing State v. Nestor, 9th Dist.

Summit No. 27800, 2016-Ohio-1333, ¶ 18.

       {¶30} Based on our review of the record, the trial court properly denied Mr. Gibbs’ motion

to suppress. Mr. Gibbs’ first assignment of error is overruled.

                               ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

       THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING MR. GIBBS’ MOTION TO
       SUPPRESS, THEREBY VIOLATING HIS RIGHTS AGAINST SELF-
       INCRIMINATION UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
       AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND
       ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

       {¶31} Mr. Gibbs argues in his second assignment of error that, in denying his motion to

suppress, the trial court violated his rights against self-incrimination under the United States and

Ohio Constitutions. We disagree.

       {¶32} The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the states

through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal

case to be a witness against himself.” Article I, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution contains

nearly identical language. In order to protect a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-

incrimination, statements resulting from custodial interrogations are admissible only after a

showing that law enforcement officers have followed certain procedural safeguards. See Miranda

v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). “Specifically, an individual must be advised prior to custodial

interrogation that: 1) he has a right to remain silent; 2) any statement he makes may be used as

evidence against him, and 3) he has a right to the presence of an attorney.” North Ridgeville v.

Hummel, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 04CA008513, 2005-Ohio-595, ¶ 27, citing Miranda at 444.

       {¶33} The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination may be waived if it is done

“voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” Miranda at 444. “‘Voluntariness’ is the absence of
                                                 12

physical and psychological coercion on the part of the police.” State v. Ward, 9th Dist. Lorain No.

95CA006214, 1996 WL 425904, *1 (July 31, 1996). “‘Coercion’ means misconduct which

overbore the defendant’s free will in such a way as to be a violation of the federal Constitution’s

Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.

       {¶34} Mr. Gibbs does not dispute that he was advised of his Miranda rights after being

placed in the backseat of Trooper Fowlers’ cruiser. It is Mr. Gibbs’ position that his statements

given, both before and after he was Mirandized, were involuntary and were a result of coercion.

       {¶35} After Mr. Gibbs was Mirandized, Trooper Fowler asked him if he had a firearm.

Mr. Gibbs said that he did not have a firearm. Trooper Fowler again inquired as to whether there

was a firearm in the truck, and Mr. Gibbs said that he was not sure but there might be one. When

Trooper Fowler said that he was going to look in the truck for a firearm, Mr. Gibbs again said that

there was no firearm in the vehicle. Mr. Gibbs subsequently admitted that there was a firearm in

the side water bottle holder of his backpack.

       {¶36} Trooper Fowler testified why he questioned Mr. Gibbs about the firearm. Mr.

Gibbs previously told Trooper Fowler that he did not have a CCW. An ammunition cartridge was

seen on the floor of the truck and Mr. Gibbs’ demeanor had changed. Trooper Fowler testified

that he had a concern for the safety of others as well as the officers. Trooper Fowler testified that

he wanted to verify that Mr. Gibbs did not have a firearm before he let him go.

       {¶37}    The trial court found that there were no constitutional violations that overbore the

will of Mr. Gibbs and coerced him into involuntarily speaking. The record, and this Court’s

conclusion when addressing Mr. Gibbs’ first assignment of error support the conclusion.

       {¶38} There is no evidence of coercive police conduct, nor is there any evidence that Mr.

Gibbs’ will was overborne and his capacity for self-determination impaired due to coercive police
                                                13

conduct. Mr. Gibbs was pulled over for a traffic violation. The stop occurred along I-77 and it

was dark outside. For safety reasons, Trooper Fowler had Mr. Gibbs come to the back of the

cruiser to run his information and issue a citation. Once inside the cruiser, Trooper Fowler advised

Mr. Gibbs of his Miranda rights. Mr. Gibbs was advised of his Miranda rights before he was

questioned about whether a firearm was inside the truck. Appellant offers no evidence that there

was any physical or psychological coercion or other police misconduct that so overbore his will to

establish his statements were not voluntary. State v Ward, supra. As we previously concluded,

Trooper Knowles lawfully saw the ammunition cartridge in plain view when looking into Mr.

Gibbs’ truck and, in light of his concern for officer safety and the safety of others, Trooper

Knowles lawfully inquired about whether a firearm was in the vehicle.

       {¶39} Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the trial court did not err in denying

Mr. Gibbs’ motion to suppress. Mr. Gibbs’ second assignment of error is overruled.

                                                III.

       {¶40} Mr. Gibbs’ assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit

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 Summit, 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.
                                                14

       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

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.

                                                     SCOT STEVENSON
                                                     FOR THE COURT

FLAGG LANZINGER, J.
CONCURS.

CARR, P. J.
CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.

APPEARANCES:

D. COLEMAN BOND, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.