[A]utomobiles are justifiably the subject of pervasive regulation by the State … A motorist must surely expect that such regulation will on occasion require the State to determine the VIN of his or her vehicle.
New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986)
State v. Church
Fifth District Appellate Court
Guernsey County, Ohio
December 19, 2024
Why is this case important?
This case is a great review of pretextual traffic stops, ‘delaying’ a traffic stop for a canine sniff, the importance of checking the VIN number and what constitutes a fog line violation.
The Inception of a Pre-Textual Traffic Stop
What NFL Team?
On June 5, 2023, Deputy Brian Carpenter of the Guernsey County Sheriff’s Department was stationary in his cruiser on Interstate 70 watching eastbound traffic. He watched a black and yellow Chevy HHR pass by which he recognized due to its unique paint job and NFL-themed accessories. Dep. Carpenter knew Mr. William Church was known to drive the vehicle and that he was the subject of an ongoing narcotics investigation. Dep. Carpenter decided to follow the Chevy on Interstate 70 and as it exited at milepost 178 towards Southgate Parkway. At the end of the exit ramp a white sedan was stopped at the light ahead of the Chevy waiting to turn left. The Chevy pulled beside the white sedan, crossed the fog line with both right-side tires, and stopped beyond the stop bar in order to turn right.
Did William and Mom Attended a June Wrestling Match?
Noting the traffic violation, Dep. Carpenter followed the Chevy as it entered a Pilot gas station, 61700 Southgate Road, Cambridge, Ohio and activated his cruiser’s overhead lights and dash camera. Before Dep. Carpenter could approach the vehicle, Mr. Church exited the driver’s side and approached Dep. Carpenter. Dep. Carpenter found this unusual. Mr. Church stated he did not see Dep. Carpenter or realize there was a traffic stop in progress. Dep. Carpenter requested Mr. Church’s license and registration and Mr. Church complied. Dep. Carpenter placed Mr. Church in his cruiser to continue their conversation. Mr. Church indicated he was coming from Upper Sandusky where he had spent the night with his mother and where the two had attended a wrestling match.
The traffic stop occurred here at the Pilot Gas Station, 61700 Southgate Road, Cambridge, Ohio.
Was the LEADS Information Incorrect?
Dep. Carpenter discovered Mr. Church’s license was suspended. Mr. Church disputed this discovery and Dep. Carpenter therefore spent a good portion of the stop reviewing Mr. Church’s citation and suspension history with him. Dep. Carpenter then began writing a warning citation. Dep. Carpenter left his cruiser to verify the VIN number on the Chevy matched the information he was receiving when he ran Mr. Church’s information as well as Mr. Church’s registration.
The Lack of Dog Supplies and Constricted Pupils Contributed to Reasonable Suspicion
When Mr. Church approached the vehicle, he noted no visible luggage nor any supplies for the dog that was in Mr. Church’s car that would indicate Mr. Church had been traveling. Upon returning to the cruiser, Dep. Carpenter noticed Mr. Church’s pupils were constricted. Per Dep. Carpenter’s training and experience, constricted pupils can be indicative of opiate use. Dep. Carpenter therefore became suspicious of Mr. Church’s whereabouts prior to the stop.
Opiates or Heart Medication?
A Canine is on the Way to Help
When asked, Mr. Church denied ingesting opiates but stated he had a heart condition and was on medication for that. When asked if there was anything illegal in the Chevy Mr. Church replied: “I don’t think so” and “there shouldn’t be.” Dep. Carpenter found the response suspicious. Dep. Carpenter requested permission to search the Chevy and Mr. Church denied the same. Dep. Carpenter then requested a K9 Unit dispatched to his location for a free-air sniff.
Canine Concluded the Constricted Pupils was NOT Heart Medication
Five minutes after Dep. Carpenter made the request, K9 handler Deputy Castor arrived on the scene and deployed his dog. While that was happening, Dep. Carpenter was explaining the warning citation to Mr. Church and finishing writing the citation. During that time, the dog alerted on the Chevy indicating the presence of narcotics. Large quantities of methamphetamine and fentanyl were then discovered in the vehicle. From the beginning of the stop until the dog alerted on Mr. Church’s Chevy, a total of 22 minutes elapsed.
Indicted
On July 11, 2023, the Guernsey County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Mr. Church with one count of trafficking in a fentanyl-related compound, a felony of the first degree, possession of a fentanyl-related compound, a felony of the first degree, aggravated trafficking in drugs, a felony of the second degree, and aggravated possession drugs, a felony of the second degree.
Motion to Suppress is Denied
Mr. Church entered pleas of not guilty to the charges and filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop. Mr. Church challenged probable cause and reasonable suspicion for the stop and alleged his detention was unlawfully extended in order to bring a K9 officer to the scene. A hearing was held on the motion on November 27, 2023. The state presented testimony from Detective Dep. Carpenter and K9 Officer Castor and elicited the above outlined testimony. On December 13, 2023, the trial court denied Mr. Church’s motion.
Prison Cap of Twelve Years … and NOT for Possession of Heart Medication
On March 15, 2024, following plea negotiations with the state, Mr. Church entered pleas of no contest to one count of possession of a fentanyl-related compound, a felony of the first degree, and aggravated possession of drugs, a felony of the second degree. In exchange for Mr. Church’s pleas the state agreed to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment and agreed to cap their argument for prison time at 12 years. Mr. Church’s bond was the continued pending completion of a presentence investigation.
Sentenced Twelve to Sixteen Years
Mr. Church appeared for sentencing on May 13, 2024. The trial court sentenced Mr. Church to an aggregate total of 12-16 years incarceration.
https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/A828770
Appeal – Stop was Extended for Canine and the Traffic Stop was Pretextual
In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Church argues Detective Dep. Carpenter unlawfully extended the duration of the traffic stop in order to bring a K9 handler to the scene, that the stop was pretextual and intended to target Mr. Church, and Dep. Carpenter’s testimony was inconsistent and therefore incredible. We disagree.
Was the Traffic Stop Unreasonably Extended?
Mr. Church argues Dep. Carpenter unnecessarily extended the length of the stop in order to get a K9 unit to the scene. He argues an unnecessary VIN check, excessive entry and exit from the vehicle by Dep. Carpenter, interrupted ticket writing, and excessive unrelated questioning were all conducted with the sole purpose of delaying the issuance of a warning citation.
Established Case Law on Traffic Stops and Canine Sniffs
This court has recently found “the pertinent question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues or could have issued the initial ticket, but whether the dog sniff adds time to the stop”. State v. Perkins, 2019-Ohio-4328.
The June Wrestling Match and Heart Medication Discussions Added to the Duration of the Traffic Stop
Here no time was added to the stop in order to bring a dog to the scene. While Mr. Church argues Dep. Carpenter unnecessarily extended the stop in various ways, we note that Mr. Church initiated the conversation regarding whether or not his operator’s license was suspended as well as on other topics including wrestling and his heart condition. Dep. Carpenter also testified he routinely checks the physical VIN on a vehicle during a traffic stop and needed to exit his cruiser a second time to remove Mr. Church’s dog from his vehicle before the canine sniff was performed. It took 22 minutes for Mr. Church to issue the citation which he testified was not unusual.
To support his argument that the traffic stop here was illegally extended Mr. Church relies upon Rodriguez v. U.S., 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015). Rodriguez, however, is factually distinguishable. In that matter, the officer had completed the purpose for the traffic stop, and had issued Rodriguez a citation. Only then did the officer request permission from Rodriguez to walk his dog around Rodriguez’s vehicle. When Rodriguez declined, the officer further detained Rodriguez, directed him to exit the vehicle and stand in front of it until a second officer arrived on the scene. The dog sniff in Rodriguez was not conducted contemporaneously with the legitimate activities of the traffic stop.
We therefore find no Fourth Amendment violation …
The facts here differ. Mr. Church was lawfully detained and the purpose of the traffic stop had not yet been fulfilled when Officer Castor arrived and walked his dog around Mr. Church’s car. We therefore find no Fourth Amendment violation in Dep. Carpenter’s decision to summon Castor to walk his dog around Mr. Church’s car.
Was this an Unreasonable Pretextual Traffic Stop?
In one word … No … it was a Reasonable Pretextual Stop
Mr. Church also argues the stop was pretextual. In State v. Ackerson, 2013-Ohio-4020 (5th Dist.) we noted “[A] traffic stop is valid under the Fourth Amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring. City of Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996). It is irrelevant the officer may have had other subjective motives for stopping the vehicle. Id.” Ackerson, ¶ 21. Because Mr. Church does not argue that he did not commit the traffic offense upon which the traffic stop was made, his pretextual stop argument is without merit.
Only the Alleged Heart Medication Proponent Lacked Credibility
Mr. Church also argues Dep. Carpenter’s testimony lacked credibility and was inconsistent. Mr. Church specifically points to Dep. Carpenter’s testimony regarding whether or not he knew Mr. Church was driving the suspect vehicle and therefore alleges Dep. Carpenter was untruthful and inconsistent about his true motivation for the traffic stop.
During a suppression hearing, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate witness credibility. State v. Brooks, 75 Ohio St.3d 148, 154 (1996). A reviewing court is bound to accept the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v. Medcalf, 111 Ohio App.3d 142, 145 (4th Dist.1996).
Dep. Carpenter testified he recognized Mr. Church’s vehicle due to its unique appearance and the fact that Mr. Church had been the subject of an ongoing drug investigation for one to two years. He stated he was unable to see who was driving until Mr. Church exited the Chevy. Mr. Church appears to argue that this testimony was untruthful because in his opinion, Dep. Carpenter actually sought to stop Mr. Church to conduct a drug investigation. But as noted above, as long as a traffic violation occurred, Dep. Carpenter’s subjective motive for making the traffic stop is irrelevant. So too, simply because Dep. Carpenter was uncertain who was behind the wheel until he actually saw who was behind the wheel is in no way inconsistent or incredible, particularly since this stop took place at night.
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, Mr. Church’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
The judgment of the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Church, 2024 – Ohio – 5931.
State v. Church, 2024 – Ohio – 5931 was issued by the Fifth District Appellate Court on December 19, 2024 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas.
Lessons Learned:
- Extending a Traffic Stop for a Canine Sniff? Law enforcement may not extend a traffic stop for a canine free air sniff and that was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) when it held “Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are – or reasonably should have been completed … An officer, in other words, may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop. But … he may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.”. Hence the “Rodriguez Moment” is the moment at which the purpose of the stop has been completed. Because Mr. Church discussed his attendance at the June wrestling match in Upper Sandusky with his mother and his heart medication, Dep. Carpenter did not extend the traffic stop past the “Rodriguez Moment”.
- Vehicle Identification Number – On Tuesday February 25, 1986 the U.S. Supreme Court issued New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986). In that case the court determined that law enforcement may reach into a vehicle to move papers (objects) that are blocking the VIN to assure that the license plate matches the vehicle. The court in that case also opined “The VIN is a significant threat in the web of regulation of the automobile … By making the automobile theft more difficult the VIN safeguards not only property but life and limb. See FED Reg. 10207 (1968) … Moreover, automobiles are justifiably the subject of pervasive regulation by the State … A motorist must surely expect that such regulation will on occasion require the State to determine the VIN of his or her vehicle.”. Consequently, law enforcement may assure that the VIN matches the license plate of a lawfully stopped vehicle. In this case Mr. Church feebly argued that Dep. Carpenter unreasonably extended the traffic stop because the deputy checked the VIN number. “He [Mr. Church] argues an unnecessary VIN check, excessive entry and exit from the vehicle by Dep. Carpenter, interrupted ticket writing, and excessive unrelated questioning were all conducted with the sole purpose of delaying the issuance of a warning citation.”. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a VIN check is reasonable during a lawful traffic stop.
- Pre-Textual Traffic Stops – On June 10, 1996 the U.S. Supreme Court issued Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996) that provided judicial acceptance of the pre-textual stop doctrine as the court held “[T]he District Court found that the officers had probable cause to believe that petitioners had violated the traffic code. That rendered the stop reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”. Id at 819. In this case Mr. Church crossed the fog line and failed to stop behind the stop bar. Both are violations for a lawful traffic stop. For more on Whren see Wh(r)en is it lawful to stop a vehicle?.
- Fog Line Violation – A violator must cross, not just touch the fog line for it to be a violation of O.R.C. §4511.33(A)(1). This was determined by the Supreme Court of Ohio on December 22, 2020 when it held “Because Turner did not cross the single solid white longitudinal line – the fog line – and driving on it or touching it is not prohibited under O.R.C. §4511.33(A)(1), no violation occurred.”. State v. Turner, 2020 – Ohio – 6773. For more on the Turner case see Who was Right? M.C. Hammer or the Supreme Court of Ohio?
- Pre-Sent Arms! Guernsey County Deputy Brian Carpenter and Canine Deputy Castor and the Guernsey County Prosecutor’s Office should all be highly commended for their investigation, prosecution and appellate work on the successful prosecution of Mr. Church. Well done!
Does your agency train on Traffic Stops?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!