[P]olice officers are entitled to rely on information received from other police officers when determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to detain a suspect.
State v. Hammer
2023 – Ohio – 1307
Second District Appellate Court
April 21, 2023
On Tuesday April 14, 2020, Dayton Police Officer Timmie Batley was dispatched to 46 South Monmouth Street in response to a report of two individuals engaging in suspicious activity in an alley behind that address.
Dayton Police Officers were dispatched to the rear of 46 South Monmouth Street because a caller advised there were suspects involved in suspicious activity. Once the officers arrived they agreed – but was the detainment of the suspects lawful?
When Officer Batley arrived at the scene, he observed two individuals sitting in the bed of a Dodge pick-up truck that was parked in the alley. Officer Batley approached the individuals, who were later identified as Ms. Patricia Hammer and Mr. Ora Donaldson. Officer Batley advised Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson that he was there due to a report of suspicious activity. Officer Batley thereafter asked both Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson if the truck in which they were sitting belonged to them, and they responded that it belonged to their friend who lived in Middletown. During that time, Officer Batley observed that the truck had a broken passenger window. Officer Batley then asked Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson for their identification information, which they provided. While providing their identification information, Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson advised Officer Batley that they had been living in a nearby trailer located at 47 South Jersey Street. Shortly thereafter, two more police officers arrived at the scene.
Ms. Patricia Hammer and Mr. Ora Donaldson told the officers they were residing in a trailer near 47 South Jersey Street.
After speaking with Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson, Ofc. Officer Batley checked their identification information using his police cruiser computer; he learned that Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson each had a Suspect Locator Alert (“SLA”) associated with their names. Officer Batley testified that an SLA pops up when another officer wants to speak with an individual regarding a crime that the individual may have committed or a crime that the individual may have knowledge of someone else committing. Officer Batley testified that the SLAs on Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson indicated that they were wanted for questioning by Det. Curry Mire.
After observing the SLAs, Ofc. Officer Batley placed Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson in separate, locked police cruisers while he called his supervising sergeant regarding the matter. Officer Batley patted Ms. Hammer down for officer safety before placing her inside his cruiser unhandcuffed. Officer Batley did not ask Ms. Hammer any questions while she was being detained.
A short time later, Det. Mire arrived at the scene. Det. Mire testified at the hearing that he had placed the SLAs on Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson based on his investigation of a series of trailer and truck thefts that had occurred in the Dayton area. Specifically, Det. Mire had investigated the theft of a trailer from Falke Drive on February 28, 2020, and had determined that Mr. Donaldson was a responsible party. During that investigation, Det. Mire obtained photographs showing the stolen trailer hooked up to the truck that was used during the theft. Det. Mire testified that the photographs showed Ms. Hammer sitting in the passenger seat of the truck.
Det. Mire also investigated the theft of a trailer from a company called Oberwerk located at 1861 Wayne Avenue that had occurred sometime between February 28 and March 3, 2020.
There was a trailer theft from Oberwerk located here at 1861 Wayne Avenue. Both Ms. Patricia Hammer and Mr. Ora Donaldson were implicated in the theft which led to their detainment at the rear of 46 South Monmouth Street … but was the detainment lawful?
While investigating that theft, Det. Mire obtained a video showing the stolen trailer hooked up to a truck owned by Mr. Donaldson. According to Det. Mire, the video also showed Ms. Hammer sitting in the passenger seat of the truck.
Det. Mire further investigated the theft of a trailer and some scrap metal from Leo Street that had occurred at the end of March 2020. Det. Mire testified that the truck that was used during the theft had been stolen from Mr. Donaldson’s previous employer. During that investigation, Det. Mire obtained a video showing both Mr. Donaldson and Ms. Hammer with the stolen truck. After placing the SLAs on Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson, on April 14, 2020, Det. Mire was contacted by Sergeant King, who advised him that Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson had been located at 46 South Monmouth Street. Det. Mire testified that he told Sgt. King that he would like Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson to be detained so that he could respond to the scene and question them. Det. Mire testified that he arrived at the scene within 15 minutes of receiving Sgt. King’s call.
Upon arriving at the scene, Det. Mire saw a truck parked in the alley behind 46 South Monmouth Street. Before speaking with Ms. Hammer, Det. Mire checked the truck’s license plate and determined that the plate did not belong to the truck. Det. Mire also noticed that the truck had a peeled column, which he explained was a frequently used method of stealing older-model pick-up trucks. Det. Mire then checked the truck’s vehicle identification number through Ohio’s LEADS database and determined that the truck had been stolen from Harrison Township. Det. Mire also spoke with a witness at the scene who described seeing two individuals with a trailer in the area. Det. Mire testified that he believed those individuals were Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson.
After his initial investigation at the scene, Det. Mire made contact with Ms. Hammer while she was seated in the back of Ofc. Officer Batley’s police cruiser. The police cruiser was equipped with a camera that recorded Det. Mire’s conversation with Ms. Hammer. The video recorded conversation was admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 1, and it established that Det. Mire read Ms. Hammer her Miranda rights before he asked her any questions. Det. Mire testified that he read the Miranda rights from a card issued to him by the prosecutor’s office. The card was also admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 2.
After Det. Mire advised Ms. Hammer of her Miranda rights, Ms. Hammer indicated that she understood her rights and began to speak with Det. Mire. However, a few minutes into their conversation, Ms. Hammer advised Det. Mire that she wanted to speak with an attorney. At that point, Det. Mire terminated the interview and did not ask Ms. Hammer any further questions. Det. Mire had no further contact with Ms. Hammer.
After considering the foregoing testimony and evidence, on December 15, 2020, the trial court overruled Ms. Hammer’s motion to suppress. [The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791, so Ms. Hammer’s motion to suppress was overruled on the 229th anniversary of this most historical event!]
In so holding, the trial court found that Ms. Hammer’s detainment in the back of Officer Batley’s police cruiser had been constitutionally permissible. Specifically, the trial court found that Det. Mire’s knowledge about Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson’s involvement in the series of trailer and truck thefts had provided probable cause to detain Ms. Hammer, and that said knowledge could be imputed to Officer Batley once Officer Batley became aware of the SLAs. The trial court also found that Ms. Hammer’s pre-detainment statements to Officer Batley were admissible because they were not made during a custodial interrogation that required Miranda warnings. The trial court further found that Ms. Hammer’s post-detainment statements to Det. Mire were admissible because Det. Mire had advised Ms. Hammer of her Miranda rights, which the trial court found Ms. Hammer knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily had waived.
Following the trial court’s ruling on Ms. Hammer’s motion to suppress, the matter proceeded to a jury trial. Based on the testimony and evidence presented at trial, the jury found Ms. Hammer guilty of the first-degree-misdemeanor count of receiving stolen
property, one fifth-degree-felony count of receiving stolen property, and the single count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Ms. Hammer to an aggregate, indefinite term of two to three years in prison.
Ms. Hammer now appeals from her conviction, raising a single assignment of error for review.
Appeal
Ms. Hammer Claims She was Unlawfully Seized
Under her sole assignment of error, Ms. Hammer contends that the trial court erred by overruling her motion to suppress. Specifically, Ms. Hammer claims that she was illegally seized in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights when Officer Batley detained her in the backseat of his police cruiser for questioning by Det. Mire.
Collective Knowledge Doctrine
The Collective Knowledge Doctrine, however, “[P]ermits police officers to rely on information provided to them by other officers in helping to establish probable cause or reasonable suspicion.” State v. Jones, 2011-Ohio-1984.
“Reasonable suspicion [or probable cause] may exist based upon the collective knowledge of the police when there is reliable communication between the officer supplying the information and the officer acting on that information.” State v. Freeman, 2015-Ohio-2501. [Based on Ms. Hammer’s long criminal history she IS Reasonable Suspicion no matter where she goes.]
More specifically, “‘vertical collective knowledge’ … involves situations where one officer has probable cause [or reasonable suspicion] and instructs another officer to act but does not communicate the corpus of the information known to the first officer that would justify the action.” State v. Ojezua, 2016-Ohio-2659. Under such circumstances, the State must show that the officer who provided the information had a valid reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or sufficient facts adding up to probable cause. State v. Wortham, 145 Ohio App.3d 126, 130, (2d Dist. 2001).
Ms. Hammer’s Encounter with Police and Subsequent Detention
Upon review, we find that Ms. Hammer’s initial encounter with Officer Batley was consensual and did not implicate any Fourth Amendment concerns; the record indicates that Officer Batley simply walked up to Ms. Hammer and asked her some questions while she was sitting in the bed of a pick-up truck parked in an alley. As previously discussed, “[A] consensual encounter can occur when a police officer approaches and questions individuals in or near a parked car.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Schott, 2d Dist. Darke No. 1415, 1997
The fact that Officer Batley requested Ms. Hammer’s identification information did not make the encounter nonconsensual. State v. Crum 2009-Ohio- 3012
Officer Batley’s encounter with Ms. Hammer remained consensual until he observed the SLA associated with Ms. Hammer’s name. At that point, Officer Batley patted Ms. Hammer down and placed her in the backseat of his locked police cruiser unhandcuffed so that he could contact his supervising officer regarding the SLA. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person in Ms. Hammer’s position would not have felt free to leave given that she was locked inside the police cruiser awaiting questioning. Accordingly, we find that Ms. Hammer was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes once she was placed in Officer Batley’s cruiser.
Upon review, we find that Ms. Hammer’s seizure was constitutionally permissible because it was based on probable cause that existed from the Collective Knowledge of all the officers. The record indicates that Det. Mire had previously investigated several thefts of trailers and trucks in the Dayton area for which Ms. Hammer had been a suspect. During his investigation, Det. Mire obtained photographs and videos showing Ms. Hammer seated in the stolen trucks and in trucks attached to the stolen trailers. Det. Mire also knew that Ms. Hammer was associated with Mr. Donaldson, who Det. Mire knew was involved with the thefts. All this information provided Det. Mire with probable cause to arrest Ms. Hammer.
When Officer Batley came across Det. Mire’s SLA on Ms. Hammer, Officer Batley contacted his supervising officer, who then contacted Det. Mire. Upon learning about Ms. Hammer’s being located, Det. Mire asked that Ms. Hammer be detained so that he could question her about the thefts. This is a prime example of “vertical collective knowledge,” i.e., where “ ‘one officer has probable cause and instructs another officer to act, but does not communicate the corpus of the information known to the first officer that would justify the action.’ ”. State v. Ojezua, 2016 – Ohio – 2659 Therefore, the probable cause that Det. Mire had concerning Ms. Hammer could be imputed to Officer Batley when Officer Batley detained Ms. Hammer in the back of his police cruiser per Det. Mire’s request.
Probable Cause is Based on an Objective Totality of the Circumstances not the Officers Subjective Belief
Although it is unclear from the record whether Det. Mire believed he had probable cause to arrest Ms. Hammer, this court “[I]s not bound by an officer’s subjective conclusions concerning the existence of probable cause and may determine that an officer possessed probable cause even if the officer did not believe that the probable cause standard had been satisfied.”. State v. Hansard 2008- Ohio-3349 Therefore, the fact that Det. Mire asked to have Ms. Hammer detained for questioning as opposed to having her placed under arrest is irrelevant to our analysis.
We also note that, before Det. Mire questioned Ms. Hammer, he was able to determine that the pick-up truck Ms. Hammer and Mr. Donaldson had been sitting in was stolen by observing the truck’s peeled column and by checking the truck’s VIN on LEADS. Upon learning that the truck was stolen, Det. Mire not only had probable cause with regard to his prior investigation of the stolen trucks and trailers, but he also had probable cause to arrest Ms. Hammer for the stolen truck in the alley behind 46 South Monmouth Street.
Holding
For all the foregoing reasons, we find no Fourth Amendment violation with respect to Ms. Hammer’s warrantless seizure and therefore overrule her sole assignment of error.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Hammer 2023 – Ohio – 1307.
This case was issued by the Second District Appellate Court and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Champaign, Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami and Montgomery.
Lessons Learned:
- This case was decided, in part, based on the Collective Knowledge Doctrine that was recognized by the Second District Appellate Court on April 22, 2011, as it held “Similarly, we have held that “police officers are entitled to rely on information received from other police officers” when determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to detain a suspect. State v. Wortham, 145 Ohio App. 3d 126 (2001)Under the collective knowledge doctrine, Detective Noll was justified in relying on information provided to him from other officers involved in the investigation to prepare the affidavit for the search warrant, and the magistrate was equally justified in considering that information in making her probable cause determination.”. The doctrine provides that a single law enforcement officer does not have to have all of the information to arrest or search a person, so long as other officers have previously established Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause that lead to the detainment, search or arrest of the suspect(s).
- The Second District Court also referenced the Vertical Collective Knowledge Doctrine which was recognized in 2016 as it held “Collective knowledge may be applied horizontally and vertically … The court also explained that the vertical collective knowledge category involves “situations where one officerhas probable cause and instructs another officer to act but does not communicate the corpus of the information known to the first officer that would justify the action.”. State v. Ojezua, 2016 – Ohio – 2659. The Collective Knowledge Doctrines can also work against law enforcement. If one officer has exculpatory information that same information will be imputed to all officers.
- Both Dayton Police Officer Timmie Batley and Detective Curry Mire should be highly commended for their tenacity to obtain the facts and information … collectively to charge, convict and overcome Ms. Hammer’s appeal. Well done Officer Batley and Detective Mire!
Does your agency train on the Collective Knowledge Doctrine?
Contact me at https://www.objectivelyreasonable.com/contact/
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and Objectively Reasonable!