[W]e conclude that the evidence presented at the suppression hearing failed to establish that Meadows was in custody at any point during the encounter with law enforcement until he was actually handcuffed and Mirandized.
State v. Meadows
2022 – Ohio – 287
Fourth District Appellate Court
Ross County
Undated
On Thursday August 29, 2019 State Highway Patrol Trooper Atwood in Ross County, Ohio, on US 23 South was sitting stationary on US 23 observing southbound traffic when he noticed a male later identified as Mr. Jeffrey Meadows’ vehicle pass by. The trooper noticed a loud and unusual sound emanating from the vehicle, and he also noticed Mr. Meadows sitting rigidly in the driver’s seat, leaning up towards the steering wheel. Upon observing Mr. Meadows’ vehicle pass by, Tpr. Atwood then observed Mr. Meadows’ vehicle travel over the solid white line by over a tire width until it was out of sight.
Tpr. Atwood pulled out and eventually caught up with Mr. Meadows. Upon catching up with him, he observed Mr. Meadows move from the left lane to the right lane without signaling. After confirming Mr. Meadows’ vehicle was, in fact, the vehicle that passed by that was making a loud noise, Tpr. Atwood activated his lights and initiated a traffic stop. Upon stopping, Mr. Meadows can be seen on the cruiser video making a slight jerking motion to the right. As Tpr. Atwood approached the passenger side of the vehicle, he asked Mr. Meadows if he was “shoving” something. Although it cannot be deciphered on the dash cam video, apparently Mr. Meadows told the trooper that he took out his “grill” (gold teeth covering) and put it in the cup holder. The ultimate disposition of the grill is not provided in the appellate decision.
In addition to Mr. Meadows, there were two female passengers in the vehicle. Tpr. Atwood asked Mr. Meadows to step out of the vehicle and when he did, it appears from the video that something may have fallen, to which Tpr. Atwood responded by asking Mr. Meadows if that was his “burner.” Mr. Meadows responded in the negative and could not produce a driver’s license or identification card. Tpr. Atwood thereafter took him to the front of his cruiser where he patted him down. He then placed Mr. Meadows in the front seat and proceeded to ask him for identifying information, including his social security number, in order to run it through the system. Suspects should never be placed in the front seat of a cruiser for detainment. He also asked him who owned the vehicle. There was some confusion over who the owner was. As such, Tpr. Atwood moved Mr. Meadows to the back seat, which he explained was a safety precaution. Mr. Meadows was not handcuffed at this time, although the door was shut and the window was open. Tpr. Atwood then went to speak with the passengers in the vehicle. Both passengers denied ownership of the vehicle.
Tpr. Atwood then came back and informed Mr. Meadows both passengers denied ownership of the vehicle. Mr. Meadows then told Tpr. Atwood it was his vehicle and that he had told him that to begin with. Tpr. Atwood disagreed and asked for consent to search the vehicle. Verbal consent was given by Mr. Meadows. By that time, backup had arrived and Tpr. Boetcher stood by Mr. Meadows as he was seated in the cruiser while Tpr. Atwood searched the vehicle. During the search of the vehicle Tpr. Atwood located what was later determined to be 90 grams of methamphetamine rolled up in a sock behind a loose trim panel in the center console of the vehicle. A cell phone was located there as well. At that time Tpr. Atwood returned to his cruiser and placed Mr. Meadows in handcuffs and read him his Miranda rights. After being mirandized, Mr. Meadows stated “I just get high.” Tpr. Atwood thereafter seized another cell phone and $1200.00 cash in small bills from Mr. Meadows’ person. Search warrants were issued for forensic examinations of both phones. There is nothing in the record that indicates what evidence, if any, was recovered from the forensic review of the cell phones. Mr. Meadows was initially charged in the Chillicothe Municipal Court with one count of drug trafficking and one count of possession of drugs.
Mr. Meadows filed a motion to suppress which he claimed was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The trial court denied the motion and Mr. Meadows appealed to the Fourth District Appellate Court with four different arguments. Only two will be analyzed herein. He argued that the trial court erred in in denying his motion to suppress the evidence that was obtained after a traffic stop which he contends was not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Second, argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements that were obtained during the traffic stop, which he claims were obtained in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
The Initial Stop
Mr. Meadows first argues under this assignment of error that the initial stop of his vehicle was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Mr. Meadows raises several arguments challenging the initial stop. First, he argues that Trooper Atwood’s observation of him “sitting and leaning toward the steering wheel ‘rigidly’ ” did not give him reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. He next argues that Tpr. Atwood’s observation of a “noisy exhaust” failed to provide reasonable suspicion for the stop because “[T]here is no examination tool used to measure the noise level of an exhaust for this violation” and thus, “Trooper Atwood’s assertion that the exhaust was unusually loud is entirely based on his ‘knowledge, experience, and training.” He argues that although officers have some discretion in their judgment regarding what constitutes a loud exhaust, the cruiser video failed to demonstrate the exhaust was loud or provide reasonable suspicion for the stop. Mr. Meadows further argues that although Tpr. Atwood noted he observed Mr. Meadows’ vehicle travel over the “hashed line by an entire tire width” and also fail to signal before changing lanes, Tpr. Atwood admitted that neither of these violations appeared on the cruiser video.
The court held “As set forth above, the trial court was free to believe Trooper Atwood’s testimony that he observed a loud exhaust, as well as a marked lanes violation and turn signal violation, even though these violations could not be confirmed on review of the cruiser video and, moreover, any single one of these violations, although de minimis, would have provided sufficient reasonable suspicion for Trooper Atwood to initiate a traffic stop.”.
Suppression of Statements
Mr. Meadows argues that the question presented here is whether a reasonable person in his position would have understood himself to be in custody while being questioned in the front seat of the police vehicle. He further argues that Trooper Atwood “set the tone of intimidation from the first interaction” because he was a “uniformed state trooper in a marked vehicle,” and by immediately accusing Mr. Meadows of shoving something near the center console and then asking him if that was his “burner” he just dropped when he exited the vehicle.
He points to additional factors present as well, including the fact that Tpr. Atwood removed him from his vehicle and patted him down less than two minutes after initiating the stop, as well as the fact that the trooper then placed him in the front seat of the cruiser with the door closed and began asking him questions. Mr. Meadows contends that a reasonable person in his situation would have understood himself to be in custody during this questioning from the trooper. He further argues that he was in custody when Tpr. Atwood moved him to the back seat of the cruiser, with an open window but with doors that only open from the outside, and left him guarded by a second trooper while he was searching the vehicle. Mr. Meadows argues that Tpr. Atwood made further “accusations” about weapons being in the vehicle when he was seated in the back of the cruiser. Mr. Meadows argues that any and all statements made during this time were elicited during a custodial interrogation in violation of his Miranda rights, and because the questioning occurred without a lawyer, that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was also violated.
The Fourth District Appellate court rejected Mr. Meadows arguments and held “[W]e conclude that the evidence presented at the suppression hearing failed to establish that Meadows was in custody at any point during the encounter with law enforcement until he was actually handcuffed and Mirandized.”.
Because we have determined that Meadows was not in custody for purposes of triggering a Miranda warning, and further because we have found that he made no incriminating statements during the encounter in question until after he had already been Mirandized, we find no merit to this argument raised under his first assignment of error. Thus, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress based upon the ground that his statements were obtained in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Meadows, 2022 – Ohio – 287.
This case was issued by the Fourth District Appellate Court which is only binding in the following Ohio counties: Adams, Athens, Gallia, Highland, Hocking, Jackson, Lawrence, Meigs, Pickaway, Pike, Ross, Scioto, Vinton and Washington.
Lessons Learned:
- R.C. § 4511.33(A)(1) states in pertinent part: “be driven, as nearly as is practicable entirely within a single lane or line of traffic.”, and O.R.C. § 4511.39(A) governs the use of signals for moving left or right and provides that “[N]o person shall … move right or left upon a highway … without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided.”. Tpr. Atwood testified he observed Mr. Meadows violate both of these violations and the trial judge believed him. In this case, unlike some recent cases, even though the video did not support the trooper’s testimony of the exact violation, the court accepted the testimony of the trooper. The court recognized this contrast when it opined “[A] review of the cruiser video reveals that there is excessive traffic and road noise throughout the stop that renders it very difficult to hear or differentiate where noise is specifically coming from … the trial court was free to believe Trooper Atwood’s testimony that he observed a loud exhaust, as well as a marked lanes violation and turn signal violation, even though these violations could not be confirmed on review of the cruiser video.”. To contrast the Fourth District Appellate Court lack of video confirmation see Because Mike’s Gettysburg Flip was not Captured on Video the Second District Appellate Court Jumps on the Video Bandwagon.
- When is Miranda required during roadside questioning? When the suspect is in custody and is being interrogated. Why wasn’t Mr. Meadows considered “in custody” when Tpr. Atwood initially questioned him? The court evaluated that moment when it opined “Because we have determined that Meadows was not in custody for purposes of triggering a Miranda warning, and further because we have found that he made no incriminating statements during the encounter in question until after he had already been Mirandized a law-enforcement officer, in the midst of investigating a traffic stop and performing all its attendant procedures, would not consider a driver free to leave unless given permission.”. This analysis is based on a Supreme Court of Ohio case that held “But ‘not free to leave’ and ‘in custody’ are distinct concepts.”. Cleveland v. Oles, 152 Ohio St.3d 1 (2017). In this case Mr. Meadows was not free to leave but also was not in custody for purposes of Miranda until he was handcuffed. The court further supported this position when it quoted “Although a motorist who is temporarily detained as the subject of an ordinary traffic stop is not “in custody” for the purposes of Miranda.”. State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St. 3d 519 (2006). Clearly this is a fine line that can become murky during roadside detention. When in doubt law enforcement should Mirandize a suspect.
- Both Tpr. Atwood and Tpr. Boetcher should be commended on recognizing the fine line of when a detainee is in custody for purpose of Miranda. Well done troopers!
Does your agency train on Miranda?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and Objectively Reasonable!