Here, the loaded syringe with an unknown substance fell from Mr. Garcia’s outer clothing while he was receiving emergency aid. That circumstance caused an exigent safety concern for anyone who was in close contact with Mr. Garcia and for anyone who would be in close contact with him during transportation to, and treatment at, the hospital.
State v. Garcia
2024 – Ohio – 1509
Sixth District Appellate Court
Sandusky, Ohio
April 19, 2024
On October 4, 2021, a Sandusky County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Anthony Garcia with possession of drugs, in violation of O.R.C. §2925.11(A), and a fifth-degree felony pursuant to O.R.C. §2925.11(C)(11)(a).
A Known Drug Addict – Overdosed – Sternum Rub
The indictment arose from an incident on Wednesday January 13, 2021, in Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio, when someone called 9-1-1 that Mr. Garcia, a known drug addict, had possibly overdosed and was unresponsive in an apartment at 1317 Loren Place, Fremont. Two Fremont police officers and three Sandusky County EMS paramedics arrived nearly simultaneously, with Officer Huddleston arriving first by about one minute while Officer Dix remained outside a little longer. Mr. Garcia’s mother greeted Officer Huddleston at the apartment entrance, permitted him entry, and showed him where Mr. Garcia lay unmoving on the floor of the tiny kitchen. According to Officer Huddleston, “I found Mr. Anthony Garcia on his back in the kitchen who appeared to be overdosing … His mom had told us that he wasn’t responding, then I started performing sternum rubs and tried to call out to him with no response.”
Mr. Garcia overdosed at 1317 Loren Place, Fremont – the far right unit. Both Fremont Police and paramedics entered to treat him. What followed was his arrest, conviction and appeal.
Paramedics Life Saving CPR
When the three paramedics arrived, Officer Huddleston stopped the sternum rubs, but Mr. Garcia’s body, the paramedics, and their equipment blocked Officer Huddleston’s exit from the tiny kitchen. While he remained there, Officer Huddleston saw the paramedics revive Mr. Garcia with life-saving CPR. Eventually, the paramedics were able to get Mr. Garcia to sit up, and then to stand to prepare to transport Mr. Garcia by ambulance to a local hospital for further medical attention.
A Loaded Syringe in Plain View and Search that Resulted in a Fentanyl Find
When Mr. Garcia stood up, a syringe loaded with an unknown substance dislodged from somewhere on his outer clothing and was found by the paramedics in plain view on the floor. A paramedic carefully handed the syringe to Officer Huddleston, who placed it on the kitchen counter behind him and away from everyone. The lead paramedic then requested Officer Huddleston search Mr. Garcia for addition items that might pose a safety risk to Mr. Garcia or anyone around him, whether in the apartment, in the ambulance, or at the hospital. According to Officer Huddleston, his main concern at that moment was, “safety for them, safety for everybody else, anything that may be around his person or his pockets. Anything that could cause, you know, physical harm to anybody.” Officer Huddleston’s search of Mr. Garcia’s jeans pockets yielded a bindle of tightly folded paper containing a white substance which, based on his experience and training, he believed was fentanyl and, if so, required extreme caution to handle. He also placed the bindle on the kitchen counter behind him and away from everyone.
After the syringe and bindle were collected into secure containers by Officers Huddleston and Dix, appellee, state of Ohio, tested the bindle and confirmed it contained fentanyl. The grand jury indicted Mr. Garcia with possession of a fentanyl- related compound. Mr. Garcia entered a not-guilty plea at his arraignment, and the matter proceeded toward a trial.
Motion to Suppress
Law Enforcement Proper Place was Outside
On November 14, 2022, Mr. Garcia filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the warrantless search of Mr. Garcia’s clothing. Mr. Garcia argued, “An officer arrived first, but EMS arrived approximately 46 seconds later. At that time the need for an officer to render medical aid was immediately obviated. Thereafter, the officer(s) should have remained remain (sic.) outside the home, while the paramedics performed their work.” Mr. Garcia argued no exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless search that produced evidence of drug paraphernalia and fentanyl. Consequently, Mr. Garcia argues the evidence must be suppressed on the authority of State v. Marshall, 2022-Ohio-1533, appeal allowed, 2022-Ohio-3214, and cause dismissed, 2022-Ohio-4268.
At the suppression hearing held on December 15, the trial court received testimony from two witnesses, Officers Huddleston and Dix, admitted two exhibits into evidence, including the police body-worn camera videos from each officer, and accepted the parties’ stipulations of fact placed into the record. Officer Huddleston testified at the hearing regarding the exigent circumstances under which he searched Mr. Garcia’s clothing.
Q: So the EMS personnel wanted you to check [Mr. Garcia’s] pockets, or you would normally do that?
Officer Huddleston: Both. Usually, when we are involved with EMS and we know they’re going to be transported and – why we knew on this situation he was going to be transported ‘cause CPR was done, so we knew that EMS would be transporting him, and they know that we – they want us to check the pockets and make sure there’s nothing else that’s going to hurt them or him in the process.
Q: So is that a matter of officer and EMS safety?
Officer Huddleston: Absolutely.
Q: So is that why his pockets were checked in this case?
Officer Huddleston: Correct.
Not Officer Safety but Paramedic Safety
Officer Dix testified that he arrived after Officer Huddleston and was not present in the tiny kitchen when the paramedics found the loaded syringe and asked Officer Huddleston to search Mr. Garcia. However, Officer Dix was nearby speaking with Mr. Garcia’s mother “just – to more get a back story to relay with EMS. That way, we could kind of find out what was going on.” When Officer Dix was asked at what point he believed a criminal investigation commenced, he replied, “I mean, I think after the needle was located, I would say that that would be the start of the criminal investigation, if you will.” Officer Dix testified it was reasonable for Officer Huddleston to search Mr. Garcia’s jeans pocket because, “EMS normally asks us to check the people for their safety before they get on the ambulance, but even after the needle was said to be found in the area, so … just for safety.”
The trial court journalized its decision to deny Mr. Garcia’s motion to suppress on December 28, 2022. Plea negotiations ensued, and on February 6, 2023, Mr. Garcia pled no contest to possession of drugs, a violation of O.R.C. §2925.11(A), and a fifth-degree felony pursuant to O.R.C. §2925.11(C)(11)(a). The trial court accepted Mr. Garcia’s no-contest plea, found Mr. Garcia guilty of the offense, and sentenced Mr. Garcia to serve six to twelve months in prison, held in reserve for three years of community control supervision and up to six months at a community-based correctional facility.
Appeal
We reviewed the trial court’s decision and find it made a number of relevant findings supported by competent, credible evidence. Officers Huddleston and Dix were dispatched to Mr. Garcia’s apartment to assist EMS with an unresponsive person suspected of overdosing per the 9-1-1 caller, who was not Mr. Garcia. Officer Huddleston’s body-worn camera video shows he was “greeted by a female occupant of the apartment who permitted Huddleston’s entrance. It was evident that Huddleston treated the situation upon his arrival as another overdose given his prior knowledge of the Defendant to be a known addict.” During the police’s encounter with Mr. Garcia, “they discovered a syringe attached to his outer clothing which gave rise to search him further for the safety of the officers and EMT personnel who were providing care.”
The trial court found that the 9-1-1 caller told the dispatcher, “[T]here was someone in the apartment who appeared to be passed out, [and] it was reasonable for the officers to enter into the apartment when greeted by a concerned and responsive occupant who permitted such. And as the officers’ testimony reveals, [their] goals were to see if there was a person who was in urgent need of their possible life-threatening assistance.”Officer Huddleston found Mr. Garcia unresponsive and immediately began providing medical aid before the paramedics took over and before drug evidence was seized.
Search for Paramedic Safety
The trial court further determined the following sequence of events: Once in the apartment, the officers’ conduct was also reasonable. They were lawfully there and within moments after their arrival, EMT’s arrived and were able to get the defendant to respond, stand and cooperate. While the Mr. Garcia was standing, an EMT discovered a syringe attached to the Mr. Garcia’s outer clothing which was handed to Huddleston. The EMT then requested Officer Huddleston to search the Mr. Garcia further for possibly dangerous items (syringes, drugs, weapons, etc.). Found in the Mr. Garcia’s front right pocket was suspected drugs which subsequent testing determined to be a fentanyl-related compound.
Is a Different Case the Same?
Mr. Garcia urges this court to find the facts in this case are nearly identical to the facts in State v. Marshall, 2022-Ohio-1533. In Marshall, the warrantless entry into the hotel room was the issue because the police arrived with, not before, EMS and actively began the warrantless search of the hotel room while EMS rendered aid to the defendant in the bathroom. Marshall, 2022-Ohio-1533. Here, Mr. Garcia does not dispute the exigent circumstances of the warrantless entry into the apartment by Officer Huddleston, the paramedics, or Officer Dix because the 9-1-1 caller said that an unresponsive person was in the apartment, possibly from a drug overdose. Officer Huddleston’s body-worn camera video shows he arrived first and was greeted by Mr. Garcia’s mother through an open door. The woman showed him where Mr. Garcia lay on the floor of the tiny kitchen, and Officer Huddleston immediately began sternum rubs to Mr. Garcia. Mr. Garcia remained unresponsive. Then the paramedics arrived and, in administering life-saving CPR to revive Mr. Garcia, Officer Huddleston’s exit from the tiny kitchen was blocked by Mr. Garcia’s body, the paramedics, and their equipment. When the paramedics prepared to transport Mr. Garcia by ambulance to the hospital, suspected drug paraphernalia – the loaded syringe – fell in plain view from Mr. Garcia’s outer clothing. The lead paramedic carefully handed the syringe to Officer Huddleston and requested a safety search.
In Marshall, the police were not lawfully present in the hotel room when they searched it.
In Marshall, the police were not lawfully present in the hotel room when they searched it. Unlike Marshall, we find that Officer Huddleston and the paramedics were lawfully present in the tiny kitchen at the time the syringe was discovered in plain view and seized. “The emergency justifies the warrantless entry, and, while lawfully present, the police may seize evidence in plain view.” State v. Levengood, 2016-Ohio-1340.
Is an Overdosed Addict with a Loaded Syringe a Risk of Harm to Paramedics or Others?
Mr. Garcia focuses his assignment of error to dispute the warrantless search of his clothing following the plain view discovery of the syringe, arguing “there [was] no evidence of a risk to them from the Mr. Garcia.” Citing State v. Stanberry, 2003-Ohio- 5700, Mr. Garcia argues “safety” was a pretext to conduct a warrantless search as part of a police investigation: “It is clear from the totality of Officer Huddleston’s testimony at the suppression hearing that, because Mr. Garcia was known to use illegal substances, Officer Huddleston intended to search Mr. Garcia’s person as part of an investigation after EMS personnel arrived to treat the Mr. Garcia for a drug overdose.”
Doctrine of Exigency
Generally, a warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless a delineated exception applies. Stanberry. The doctrine of exigency is one exception and would apply where Officer Huddleston was faced with the need to protect or preserve life or to avoid serious injury. The exigency justifying the initial warrantless entry is subject to whether Officer Huddleston’s subsequent movements were conservative, prudent, and reasonable.
A Loaded Syringe is a Risk of Harm
Contrary to Mr. Garcia’s argument, a loaded syringe with an unknown substance is evidence of a risk to those helping Mr. Garcia on site, during ambulance transport, or at the hospital. It was reasonable for the lead paramedic to carefully hand the syringe to Officer Huddleston and to request an immediate search of Mr. Garcia for anything else that might compromise safety. Officer Huddleston had probable cause to search Mr. Garcia, and the fentanyl-filled bindle he found required extreme caution to handle with the assistance of Officer Dix.
The Lit Candle Exception to the Fourth Amendment
Mr. Garcia’s reliance on Stanberry is misplaced, as that court found the warrantless search of the hospitalized defendant’s unattended home was justified under exigent circumstances. “It was not unreasonable for the officers to conclude, after observing the severely melted candles downstairs, that other candles might be lit throughout the house. As such, it was incumbent upon the officers to make a reasonable investigation of Mr. Garcia’s home and extinguish any remaining candles.” Stanberry.
Conclusion
Here, the loaded syringe with an unknown substance fell from Mr. Garcia’s outer clothing while he was receiving emergency aid. That circumstance caused an exigent safety concern for anyone who was in close contact with Mr. Garcia and for anyone who would be in close contact with him during transportation to, and treatment at, the hospital. Officer Huddleston’s search of Mr. Garcia’s clothing was then done in a conservative, prudent, and reasonable manner, as captured on his body-worn camera video.
Holding
[W]e find the warrantless search of Mr. Garcia’s clothing was justified by the doctrine of exigency.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Garcia, 2024 – Ohio – 1509.
State v. Garcia, 2024 – Ohio – 1509 was issued by the Sixth District Appellate Court on April 19, 2024 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Erie, Fulton, Huron, Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Williams and Wood.
Lessons Learned:
- Doctrine of Exigency – Most commonly, an exigent circumstance is applied to an exception to the Fourth Amendment to enter a home. However, the Sixth District Appellate Court now has ventured to Fourth Amendment rarely chartered grounds i.e. to create an exigency for the search of a person to protect the paramedics. To create an exigency for the search of a person to protect the safety of paramedics. Specifically, the court held in this case “[A] loaded syringe with an unknown substance is evidence of a risk to those helping Mr. Garcia on site, during ambulance transport, or at the hospital. It was reasonable for the lead paramedic to carefully hand the syringe to Officer Huddleston and to request an immediate search of Mr. Garcia for anything else that might compromise safety.”. This holding is based on the three-part Garcia test; 1) Law enforcement is lawfully inside a residence to assist with a medical emergency. 2) Dangerous contraband emergences in plain view during treatment. 3) EMS personal request assistance to ensure their safety.
- What is an Exigent Circumstance? What the Sixth District Appellate Court did not do was to provide a foundation as to what IS an exigent circumstance. One of the best definitions was issued by the Ohio’s Ninth District Appellate Court on September 1, 1999 where the court held “Although there is no precise list of all the exigent circumstances that might justify a warrantless search, exigent circumstances generally must include the necessity for immediate action that will ‘protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury’, or will protect a governmental interest that outweighs the individual’s constitutionally protected privacy interest.”. State v. Price, 134 Ohio App.3d 464, 468 (9th 1999). In this case the Sixth District Appellate Court determined that the officers need to protect and preserve life or avoid serious injury outweighed Mr. Garcia from maintaining his fentanyl during his encounter with the paramedics and subsequent hospital staff.
- State v. Marshall – Throughout the case and appeal Mr. Garcia attempted to apply State v. Marshall, 2022-Ohio-1533. In that case the Sixth District Appellate Court suppressed felony-level drugs discovered in the Knights Inn in Rossford, Ohio Room #305 because the court held that officers were not lawfully in the room. In that case the officers did not provide any medical care to Mr. Marshall as did Officer Huddleston. Additionally, Mr. Garcia’s mother permitted law enforcement to enter the home as a co-occupant, whereas no one granted the officers in Marshall consent to enter the hotel room. For more on the Marshall case see Can Law Enforcement Search a Hotel Room While Paramedics Work on an Unconscious Overdose Patient in the Bathtub?.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Both Fremont Police Officer Huddleston and Officer Dix should be highly commended for their actions on January 13, 2021. Well done!
Does your agency train on the Doctrine of Exigency?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!