Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court rules police unlawfully conducted stop

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: November 20, 2013

A Franklin County appellate panel ruled late last week that a man’s motion for suppression was properly granted after police detained him without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

The 10th District Court of Appeals maintained that Columbus police violated Dwight Goodloe’s Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable seizures by stopping him after noticing a bulge in his pants.

The case stemmed from a police stop on June 30, 2012 when Columbus police officer Zachary Weekly and his partner were patrolling the east side of the city in a marked police cruiser.

Weekly told the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas that he saw Goodloe at the corner of an intersection and became suspicious when Goodloe hesitated to cross the street because of the cruiser.

He said he noticed bulges in both sides of Goodloe’s pants and ultimately turned the cruiser around to follow Goodloe.

Weekly said he could tell that one of the bulges was a cell phone but was unsure what the other bulge was.

The officers parked their car on the street beside Goodloe, got out and approached him on a sidewalk.

Weekly walked to Goodloe’s side and stood a foot or two away while his partner stood in front of Goodloe to block his path.

The officers asked Goodloe if he’d seen anyone looking into cars in a nearby parking lot and Goodloe replied that he had not.

When Weekly asked if he had any firearms, Goodloe sighed and “dropped his shoulders and head down,” according to case summary.

Weekly took the gesture as an admission that he was carrying a weapon and immediately reached for the bulge and withdrew a gun.

Goodloe was charged with carrying a concealed weapon and moved to suppress the gun.

He claimed that the evidence should be suppressed because the officers violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The trial court agreed and granted his motion.

On appeal to the 10th District, the state argued that the common pleas court erred by granting the motion to suppress.

“Here, the state contends that the officers engaged in a consensual encounter with Goodloe,” Presiding Judge William Klatt wrote for the court.

The reviewing judges held that a consensual encounter with police does not require any reasonable suspicion of a crime and during the encounter the citizen must be free to leave.

“In concluding that Goodloe had been seized in this case, the trial court placed significant emphasis on the location of the officers when they approached him on the sidewalk. The trial court found that one officer was blocking Goodloe’s route on the sidewalk and that the other was within a foot or two of him on the other side,” Judge Klatt stated. “We agree that this factor is significant.”

The judges held that when an officer blocks someone’s path to leave, it is generally agreed that a seizure has occurred.

In Goodloe’s case, they determined his path was blocked and Weekly was also standing close to his side.

“The presence of two uniformed officers positioned as found by the trial court would communicate to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police and walk away,” Judge Klatt continued.

Finding that Goodloe was seized and that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the judges affirmed the decision granting his motion to suppress.

Judges Gary Tyack and John Connor concurred.

The case is cited State v. Goodloe, No. 13-141.

[Back]