State v. Addison

2022 Ohio 2440 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022) · Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District · July 14, 2022 · No. 21 CA 20

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the denial of Michael A. Addison's motion to suppress evidence. The court held that an arrest warrant supplied probable cause and that, independently, Addison's flight after being told he was under arrest provided probable cause; therefore, the derivative-evidence doctrine did not require suppression of the methamphetamine.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate District
Writing for the Court
Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J.; W. Scott Gwin, J.; Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
July 14, 2022
Docket number
21 CA 20
Procedural posture
Appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress in a criminal case following Addison's no-contest pleas and convictions.
Standard of review
A suppression ruling presents a mixed question of law and fact. The appellate court accepts factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence, reviews historical facts for clear error, and independently determines de novo whether those facts satisfy the applicable legal standard, including reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Court of Appeals opinion
Parties
Michael A. Addison v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

suppression of evidencesearch and seizureprobable causecriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional criminal procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Addison's motion to suppress evidence as derivative of an allegedly illegal arrest.
  2. Whether the deputy had probable cause to stop and arrest Addison based on the parole-authority arrest warrant or, alternatively, Addison's failure to comply with the deputy's order and flight.

Holdings

  1. The arrest and seizure did not involve a constitutional violation, and the derivative-evidence doctrine did not require suppression.
  2. Appellate review of suppression rulings applies a mixed-question framework: factual findings supported by competent, credible evidence are accepted, while the legal application of those facts, including reasonable suspicion and probable cause, is reviewed independently and de novo.

Key quotations

On appeal, we "must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence." (¶ 8)
We therefore hold that as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de novo on appeal. (¶ 9)
There must be a causal connection between the constitutional violation and the derivative evidence for the latter to be suppressed. (¶ 10)

Factual background

Addison was on parole when his parole officer received information that he might possess firearms. The parole officer obtained an arrest warrant from the chief of the Adult Parole Authority. When a sheriff's deputy located Addison and told him he was under arrest pursuant to the warrant, Addison fled on a motorcycle, leading to a high-speed chase and a crash. Emergency personnel cut off Addison's clothing, and two baggies of methamphetamine were found on the roadway among the clothing and his belongings.

Procedural history

A Guernsey County grand jury indicted Addison for failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer and aggravated possession of drugs. The trial court denied his motion to suppress, finding probable cause for the stop and arrest based on an arrest warrant and, alternatively, based on Addison's flight and failure to comply with the deputy's order. Addison then pleaded no contest, was found guilty, received an aggregate thirty-six-month prison sentence, and appealed the suppression ruling.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…