Therefore, even setting aside Mr. Dehart’s lack of a driver’s license, the cruiser- camera recordings confirm that the deputies did not block his vehicle or otherwise prevent him from leaving.
State v. Dehart
2024 – Ohio – 599
Second District Appellate Court
Darke County, Ohio
February 16, 2024
Sleeping at the Gas Station
Following his indictment on one count of aggravated drug possession, Mr. Michael Dehart moved to suppress the evidence. The matter proceeded to a December 19, 2022 suppression hearing. Darke County Sheriff’s Deputy Steven Strunk was the only witness. Dep. Strunk testified that he saw Mr. Dehart’s vehicle parked at a gas station in the early morning hours of November 11, 2022. Dep. Strunk and another Deputy, William Toomey, approached the parked car to perform a welfare check on Mr. Dehart, who appeared to be asleep in the driver’s seat. Dep. Strunk immediately recognized Mr. Dehart from prior interactions and knew that he had a suspended driver’s license.
Consent Search of the Car Results in a Bag of Methamphetamine
Dep. Strunk knocked on the driver’s side window and awakened Mr. Dehart. Dep. Strunk testified that Mr. Dehart responded by opening the car door. Dep. Strunk asked whether Mr. Dehart was okay, and Mr. Dehart responded affirmatively. The deputy also asked whether Mr. Dehart had been driving the car. Mr. Dehart stated that someone else had driven and had left him there. Dep. Strunk then asked whether Mr. Dehart was in possession of any weapons or contraband, and Mr. Dehart responded negatively. At that point, the deputy requested consent to search the car. Mr. Dehart granted Dep. Strunk consent to search and stepped out of the car. Dep. Strunk found a baggie of methamphetamine in the center console. Upon finding the drugs, Dep. Strunk arrested Mr. Dehart. In addition to Dep. Strunk’s testimony, the State admitted into evidence cruiser-camera recordings from two police cruisers.
A Losing Motion to Suppress
Following the hearing, the trial court overruled Mr. Dehart’s suppression motion in a written decision. The trial court first determined that the two police cruisers did not block Mr. Dehart’s vehicle. In fact, the trial court noted that Mr. Dehart’s car was removed following his arrest without the need to reposition either cruiser. Based on its review of the cruiser-camera recordings, the trial court next found it “indeterminable” whether Dep. Strunk or Mr. Dehart had opened Mr. Dehart’s car door. But even if Dep. Strunk opened the door, the trial court found that the welfare check allowed him to do so. With regard to Mr. Dehart’s argument that Dep. Strunk lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity after confirming his welfare and his denial of driving, the trial court reasoned:
Defendant further argues that, after the welfare check was complete, the deputies had no reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Again, the Court views the initial meeting of law enforcement and the Defendant as a consensual encounter. In less than one minute, Deputy Strunk introduced himself, inquired of the Defendant’s status, obtained consent to search the vehicle, and was granted consent to search the Defendant’s person. In fact, Defendant gave consent to search the vehicle and even offered to voluntarily get out of the car. Deputy Dep. Strunk then asked Defendant, “You ain’t got nothing on you, right?” Defendant replies, “No,” and subsequently consented to the search of his person. Once the consent to search had been granted, Defendant’s arguments become moot. And the Court does not find that law enforcement unreasonably detained Defendant before requesting and obtaining consent.
No Contest and Five Years of Community Control
Mr. Dehart subsequently pled no-contest in exchange for the State’s agreement to recommend community control at sentencing. The trial court accepted the plea, made a finding of guilt, and sentenced Mr. Dehart to five years of community control.
Mr. Dehart Appeals his Conviction, Claiming he was Unreasonably Seized
In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Dehart challenges the trial court’s suppression ruling. Mr. Dehart maintains that he was “seized” for Fourth Amendment purposes when Dep. Strunk and Dep. Toomey positioned their cruisers in front of his car, leaving no room for him to pull away, and Dep. Strunk knocked on his side window. Mr. Dehart contends this seizure was unlawful as the deputies had no reason to believe he had committed or was about to commit any crime. Mr. Dehart also reasons that Dep. Strunk’s questions about weapons or contraband in the car and his request to search were investigatory insofar as they were intended to confirm or dispel a mere “hunch” about illegal activity. Based on the premise that he was detained illegally, Mr. Dehart asserts that his consent to search was invalid, as it was tainted by and the product of illegal law-enforcement activity.
Two Exceptions to the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 14, of the Ohio Constitution protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Leak, 2016-Ohio-154. One exception cited by the trial court in Mr. Dehart’s case “is the community caretaking/emergency-aid exception, which is grounded in interests of public safety.” State v. Glowney, 2019-Ohio-3390. A second exception is a consensual encounter, which occurs “when the police merely approach a person in a public place and engage the person in conversation, and the person remains free not to answer and to walk away.” State v. Lewis, 2009-Ohio-158, citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553, (1980).
Cruiser Cameras Refute Mr. Dehart’s Claim that his Car was Blocked
With the foregoing legal principles in mind, we see no error in the trial court’s overruling of Mr. Dehart’s suppression motion. As for the trial court’s factual findings, only two of them require discussion: the positioning of the deputies’ cruisers and the opening of Mr. Dehart’s car door. In support of his claim that he was unlawfully “seized,” Mr. Dehart asserts that the two deputies parked their cruisers in a way that “cornered” his vehicle and left him “without room” to drive away. The trial court rejected this claim, finding that the cruisers did not block Mr. Dehart’s vehicle. The record supports the trial court’s conclusion. The cruiser-camera recordings reflect that the deputies parked with their vehicles angled toward Mr. Dehart’s car but some distance away from it. The trial court correctly noted that Mr. Dehart’s car easily was removed from the scene without the need to reposition either cruiser. Therefore, even setting aside Mr. Dehart’s lack of a driver’s license, the cruiser- camera recordings confirm that the deputies did not block his vehicle or otherwise prevent him from leaving.
When reviewed at one-quarter speed, the video recorded by Deputy Toomey’s cruiser
As for the opening of Mr. Dehart’s car door, the trial court found it “indeterminable from the video whether the driver’s side door was opened by Deputy Dep. Strunk or the Defendant.” Having closely studied the two cruiser-camera videos, we are convinced that one of them shows Mr. Dehart opening his own car door, which is consistent with Dep. Strunk’s suppression-hearing testimony. When reviewed at one-quarter speed, the video recorded by Deputy Toomey’s cruiser shows Deputy Dep. Strunk knocking on Mr. Dehart’s driver’s side car window. The deputy then waits as Mr. Dehart slowly leans forward and toward the door as if to open it. The door then opens, and the deputy’s right hand can be seen resting on top of it. After reviewing this recording several times in slow motion, we are convinced that Mr. Dehart opened his own car door. Therefore, we reject the trial court’s finding that the video evidence is “indeterminate” with regard to who opened the door. Both the video recording and Dep. Strunk’s uncontroverted testimony constitute competent, credible evidence establishing that Mr. Dehart opened the door.
Conclusion – No Fourth Amendment Violation Occurred
It is beyond dispute that a law-enforcement officer may approach a person sleeping in a car and knock on the window. No justification is required because such contact is a consensual encounter. State v. McCarthy, 2022-Ohio-4738, (reasoning “that the officers could lawfully approach [the defendant’s] parked vehicle and knock on the window to rouse him without any specific justification because such contact is a consensual encounter that does not implicate the Fourth Amendment”). In response to Dep. Strunk’s knock, Mr. Dehart voluntarily opened his car door and conversed with the deputy. Dep. Strunk briefly asked whether Mr. Dehart was okay, whether he had been driving the car, whether he was in possession of any weapons or contraband, and whether he would consent to a search of the car. Mr. Dehart responded that he was fine, that he had not been driving, that he was not in possession of any weapons or contraband, and that Dep. Strunk could search the vehicle. Given that Mr. Dehart authorized the deputy to search the car during a consensual encounter, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred.
Mr. Dehart’s assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the Darke
County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Dehart, 2024 – Ohio – 599.
State v. Dehart, 2024 – Ohio – 599 was issued by the Second District Appellate Court on February 16, 2024 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Champaign, Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami and Montgomery.
Lessons Learned:
- When is a Vehicle Seized? At the inception of the encounter, if the deputies had blocked Mr. Dehart’s vehicle he would have been seized as no reasonable person believes they can leave if blocked by a law enforcement cruiser or physically blocked by the deputy. However, in this case that would have led to another discussion if it would have been reasonable to seize someone asleep or passed out behind the wheel ‘in the early morning hours’ at a gas station? The facts and legal analysis did not go down this path, but that would have been a robust argument. In this case Mr. Dehart makes the feeble argument that he was blocked. Unfortunately for him the cruiser cameras refuted his argument. This is a doctrine I present in the Patrol Fundamentals class in 2024 and in several in services classes with U.S. v. See, 574 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2009). On July 24, 2009 the Sixth Circuit Court held in the See case “Given the fact that [Officer] Williams blocked See’s car with his marked patrol car, a reasonable person in See’s position would not have felt free to leave … [W]e conclude that the initial Terry stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion.”.
- Is Opening a Car Door a Search? On Thursday December 8, 2022 the Supreme Court of Ohio issued State v. Jackson, 2022 – Ohio – 4365. In that case the court held “If an officer opened a car door without the owner’s permission for the purpose of ascertaining what was inside the car, such conduct might well constitute a search – it would be a physical trespass “conjoined with … an attempt to find something or to obtain information.” See United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, FN 5 (2012)”. Consequently, if a law enforcement officer opens a car door, it may be determined that it was a search and that the search was objectively unreasonable. For more on opening car doors, see Is Opening a Car Door on a Lawfully Stopped Car a Search?.
- A Benefit Law Enforcement Officers Do Not Have – In this case there was a substantial amount of analysis and review as to who opened Mr. Dehart’s door. So much review that the court stated in pertinent part “When reviewed at one-quarter speed, the video recorded by Deputy Toomey’s cruiser shows Deputy Dep. Strunk knocking on Mr. Dehart’s driver’s side car window. The deputy then waits as Mr. Dehart slowly leans forward and toward the door as if to open it. The door then opens, and the deputy’s right hand can be seen resting on top of it. After reviewing this recording several times in slow motion, we are convinced that Mr. Dehart opened his own car door.”. This underscores the importance of video in legal analyses and that the Second District Appellate Court slowed the video down to one-quarter speed and reviewed it ‘several times in slow motion’. On its’ face this is a good that the court took the time to get the facts correct. However, slowing video down to one-quarter speed and reviewing several times during an encounter is a benefit law enforcement officers do not have.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Darke County Sheriff’s Deputy Steven Strunk and Deputy, William Toomey should be highly commended for their investigation and arrest of Mr. Michael Dehart. Well done!
Does your agency train on Consensual Encounters?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!