Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a warrantless felony arrest conducted in a public place is constitutional when supported by probable cause. The court further held that neither exigent circumstances nor the impracticability of obtaining an arrest warrant is required under the United States or Ohio Constitutions. The court affirmed the First District Court of Appeals’ judgment upholding LeAndre Jordan’s convictions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution requires exigent circumstances or a showing that obtaining an arrest warrant was impracticable before officers may make a warrantless public felony arrest supported by probable cause.
- Whether the eight-day delay between the burglary and Jordan's public arrest rendered the probable cause stale or otherwise made the arrest constitutionally unreasonable.
- Whether the First District correctly affirmed the denial of Jordan's motion to suppress.
Holdings
- Neither the Fourth Amendment nor Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution requires a showing of exigent circumstances or impracticability of obtaining an arrest warrant to justify a warrantless public arrest supported by probable cause.
- The eight-day delay between the burglary and Jordan's arrest did not render the probable cause stale or make the public arrest unreasonable.
- Because Jordan did not contest that officers had probable cause to believe he had committed a felony and arrested him in a public place, his arrest was constitutionally valid and the denial of suppression was proper.
Key quotations
“A warrantless arrest that is based upon probable cause and occurs in a public place does not violate the Fourth Amendment” (¶ 2)
“The court stated that nothing in its precedent indicated that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant to make a valid felony arrest, and “[i]ndeed, the relevant prior decisions are uniformly to the contrary.”” (¶ 22)
“The Supreme Court expressly held in Watson that the Fourth Amendment does not require exigent circumstances or impracticability of obtaining a warrant before police may conduct a warrantless public arrest upon probable cause.” (¶ 27)
“We further hold 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.” (¶ 32)
Factual background
A burglary occurred at the Lockes' Cincinnati home, and a safe containing approximately $40,000 was stolen. The victims identified their son Michael and his friend LeAndre Jordan as possible suspects, and police corroborated connections between Jordan, a cream-colored Chrysler observed near the home, and telephone calls around the time of the burglary. After several days of investigation and observation, officers arrested Jordan in public eight days after the burglary without first obtaining an arrest warrant. A later search warrant for Jordan's girlfriend's apartment led to the seizure of cash, heroin, cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and a handgun, resulting in Jordan's drug convictions.
Procedural history
Jordan was convicted in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas of multiple drug offenses after officers arrested him without a warrant and subsequently obtained a warrant to search the apartment where he was staying. The trial court denied his motion to suppress, and he was sentenced after allied offenses were merged. The First District affirmed the convictions, while remanding for a nunc pro tunc correction of a clerical error concerning the driver's-license suspension. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the First District's judgment.
Remand instructions
None from the Supreme Court of Ohio. The First District's judgment, including its limited remand for a nunc pro tunc correction of the sentencing entry's driver's-license-suspension term, was affirmed.