[Cite as State v. Woods, 2018-Ohio-3352.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF SUMMIT )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 28838
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
JOEL W. WOODS, JR. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. CR 2017-01-0302
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: August 22, 2018
CALLAHAN, Judge.
{¶1} Joel Woods, Jr. appeals from his convictions in the Summit County Common
Pleas Court. This Court reverses.
I.
{¶2} Around 1:00 in the morning on January 24, 2017, Cuyahoga Falls Police Officer
Gregory Koch stopped a car for what he described as a marked lanes violation. The car had three
people in it – the driver, a front-seat passenger, and a back-seat passenger. Mr. Woods was the
front-seat passenger.
{¶3} Officer Koch requested identification from all three occupants and learned that
none of them had a valid driver’s license. Consequently, Officer Koch and additional officers,
who had arrived on scene, decided to have the car towed. The driver indicated that the car was
owned by his girlfriend, who lived in Warrensville Heights.
2
{¶4} Officer Koch further learned that the driver and Mr. Woods had outstanding
warrants. Mr. Woods’ warrant contained a caution “about having a weapon in a drive-by
shooting.” Officer Koch had Mr. Woods step out of the car and conducted a pat down search. As
a result of that search, a bag of marijuana was discovered in Mr. Woods’ pocket. Officer Koch
informed Mr. Woods of his Miranda rights and placed him in his cruiser.
{¶5} Officer Koch also had the other occupants exit the car, and he began to search it.
Officer Koch testified that multiple things were happening at once and that the other officers
finished the inventory search and tow report. As the other officers were searching the car, they
found a loaded gun under the center console.
{¶6} When Officer Koch asked Mr. Woods about the gun, Mr. Woods indicated that he
wanted to speak to his attorney. Officer Koch returned Mr. Woods to the back seat of his cruiser.
Officer Koch conferred with the other officers, and they decided to charge the driver and Mr.
Woods for the gun. After that, Officer Koch returned to his police cruiser and informed Mr.
Woods that he was under arrest. Mr. Woods asked if he was the only one being arrested, and
Officer Koch responded that they were also charging the driver. Mr. Woods then stated that the
gun was his.
{¶7} Mr. Woods was indicted for improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle, a
fourth-degree felony, and possession of marijuana, a minor misdemeanor. Mr. Woods pleaded
not guilty and moved to suppress the evidence against him. Following a hearing and additional
briefing from the parties, the trial court denied the suppression motion.
{¶8} Thereafter, Mr. Woods withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded no contest to the
charges. The trial court accepted his no contest plea, found him guilty, and sentenced him
accordingly.
3
{¶9} Mr. Woods appeals, raising one assignment of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT JOEL WOODS’
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING AN UNLAWFUL
SEARCH IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO BE SECURE FROM AN
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FOURTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND
ARTICLE I, SECTION 14 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Woods argues that the trial court erred in
denying his motion to suppress. More particularly, he challenges the traffic stop, the search of his
person, the search of the car, and his statement that the gun was his.
{¶11} “Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and
fact.” State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. The trial court, as the trier of
fact, is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses and resolve factual issues. Id. An
appellate court, therefore, “must accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by
competent, credible evidence.” Id. “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. Consequently, “this Court reviews the trial court’s
factual findings for competent, credible evidence and considers the court’s legal conclusions de
novo.” State v. Hendrix, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26648, 26649, 2013-Ohio-2430, ¶ 6.
{¶12} Initially, this Court notes that, as a passenger, Mr. Woods has standing to
challenge the traffic stop. “Passengers in a vehicle have standing to challenge the legality of a
stop because when the vehicle is stopped, their freedom of movement is affected; therefore,
when the vehicle is stopped, the passengers are seized.” State v. Earley, 9th Dist. Wayne No.
99CA0059, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 2836, *8-9 (June 28, 2000). Mr. Woods argues that “[t]here
4
was no marked lanes violation” and it was unreasonable to stop the car for “the minor, isolated
infraction of ‘hitting’ the yellow line.”
{¶13} R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) prescribes: “Whenever any roadway has been divided into
two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic * * * [a] vehicle * * * shall be driven, as nearly as is
practicable, entirely within a single lane or line of traffic * * *.” The Ohio Supreme Court has
repeatedly found that “where an officer has an articulable reasonable suspicion or probable cause
to stop a motorist for any criminal violation, including a minor traffic violation, the stop is
constitutionally valid regardless of the officer’s underlying subjective intent or motivation for
stopping the vehicle in question.” Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3, 11-12 (1996); see also
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-4539, ¶ 7-8.
{¶14} Officer Koch was the sole witness to testify at the suppression hearing. In
addition, the dash camera video of the stop was entered into evidence. On the video, Officer
Koch is heard saying, “They hit it.” On cross-examination, Officer Koch conceded that the
violation may be hard to see on the video. At the hearing, when he was asked to describe the
violation, Officer Koch testified that the “[c]ar’s left tires went on the double yellow line
appearing to almost go over the double yellow line.”
{¶15} The trial court found that “Officer[] Koch and [another officer1] observed a
vehicle make a marked lanes violation by driving on the yellow [ ] line for approximately five
seconds.” While Officer Koch’s testimony supports the court’s finding of driving on the yellow
line, he did not testify as to the length of time that the tires were on the yellow line. The video
also does not show the car being driven on the yellow line for five seconds. Consequently, the
1
Though not directly relevant to the arguments on appeal, the record indicates that this officer
did not arrive until after Officer Koch had stopped the car.
5
trial court’s finding in this regard is not supported by competent, credible evidence. See Hendrix,
2013-Ohio-2430, at ¶ 14.
{¶16} Moreover, this Court “cannot conclude that the factual inaccuracies had no impact
on the court’s ultimate decision” as to whether Officer Koch had a reasonable suspicion that the
driver committed a violation of R.C. 4511.33(A)(1). See id. When a trial court’s factual findings
are not supported by competent, credible evidence, this Court is unable to address its application
of the law to those facts. Id.; see also State v. Essad, 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 16CA010950,
16CA010951, 2017-Ohio-2913, ¶ 20. On this basis, Mr. Woods’ assignment of error is sustained.
The remaining issues under this assignment of error concern the application of the law and the
events subsequent to the stop. Based on our determination regarding the court’s factual findings,
these issues are not yet ripe for review. See Essad at ¶ 21.
III.
{¶17} Mr. Woods’ assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the Summit
County Common Pleas Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed
and cause remanded.
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.
6
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 Appellee.
LYNNE S. CALLAHAN
FOR THE COURT
SCHAFER, P. J.
CARR, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
SENECA KONTURAS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
State v. Woods
Combined Opinion