State v. McCurty

2023 Ohio 1158 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023) · Ohio Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District · April 7, 2023 · No. C.A. No. 29462

Summary

The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Second District affirmed Shaquonne McCurty’s convictions for murder and related offenses. The court held that a warrantless public arrest supported by probable cause does not require the State to show exigent circumstances or that obtaining an arrest warrant was impracticable, following the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Jordan. The court therefore rejected McCurty’s challenge to the suppression ruling concerning statements made after his arrest.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District
Writing for the Court
Lewis, J.; Epley, J.; Huffman, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
April 7, 2023
Docket number
C.A. No. 29462
Procedural posture
McCurty appealed his convictions after the trial court overruled his motion to suppress statements made following a warrantless public arrest.
Precedential value
published appellate opinion
Parties
Shaquonne McCurty v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

fourth amendmentsearch and seizureprobable causecriminal proceduresuppression of evidence

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution requires the State to show exigent circumstances or the impracticability of obtaining an arrest warrant before a warrantless public arrest supported by probable cause.
  2. Whether statements made after that arrest were required to be suppressed as fruit of an unconstitutional seizure.

Holdings

  1. A warrantless public arrest supported by probable cause does not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution merely because the State has not shown exigent circumstances or that obtaining an arrest warrant beforehand was impracticable.

Key quotations

The Court then held “that neither the United States nor the Ohio Constitution requires a showing of exigent circumstances or of the impracticability of obtaining an arrest warrant to justify a warrantless public arrest supported by probable cause.” (¶ 10)
Thus, so long as a warrantless arrest is based upon probable cause and occurs in a public place, it does not violate the Fourth Amendment. (¶ 11)

Factual background

Police arrested McCurty without a warrant in a public place based on probable cause to believe that he had committed a felony. McCurty made statements after knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waiving his Miranda rights. The trial court denied his motion to suppress, and he was subsequently convicted of murder, related felonious-assault offenses, and having weapons while under disability.

Procedural history

McCurty was indicted in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas on murder, felonious assault, and weapons-under-disability charges. After a suppression hearing, the trial court found probable cause for the arrest, determined that a warrant was impracticable to obtain, and admitted McCurty's statements following a valid Miranda waiver. A jury convicted McCurty of the murder and felonious-assault charges and the firearm specifications, while the trial court convicted him of two weapons-under-disability counts; the appellate court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…