Based on the video and the totality of the circumstances, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the OIU officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Mr. Weaver had committed a crime and did not unreasonably detain him.
State v. Weaver
Second District Appellate Court
Clark County, Ohio
June 27, 2025
Why is this case important?
Officers can rely on consensual encounters, plain view, and reasonable suspicion when evidence emerges during administrative inspections. Security personnel must strictly comply with Ohio’s licensing laws—carrying proper ID at all times—since lack of documentation creates probable cause for enforcement action.
Background – Weapons Under Disability
In November 2023, an indictment was filed charging Mr. Weaver with having weapons under disability in violation of O.R.C. §2923.13(A)(2). The indictment also included a specification seeking forfeiture of an SCCY Industries Model CPX-2 handgun. After Mr. Weaver pled not guilty, the trial court released him on his own recognizance. In January 2024, Mr. Weaver filed a motion to suppress evidence of the gun and statements that he had made. After holding hearings, the court denied the suppression motion and set a trial date for August 13, 2024. The trial occurred as scheduled and, after hearing the evidence, the jury found Mr. Weaver guilty as charged. The court sentenced Mr. Weaver to 18 months in prison and ordered the gun forfeited to law enforcement. Mr. Weaver timely appealed.
Under this assignment of error, Mr. Weaver admits that the facts surrounding his interaction with law enforcement officers from the Ohio Investigative Unit (“OIU”) are not disputed. The officers came to the club at which Mr. Weaver was working as a security officer to conduct an administrative inspection, and they observed that he was armed but was not wearing photo identification indicating that he had passed the firearms qualification, as required. However, Mr. Weaver contends the warrantless search by the OIU officers did not qualify under any exception to the requirement that a warrant be obtained before a search is conducted. Consequently, Mr. Weaver argues the trial court incorrectly applied the law in refusing to suppress evidence (his gun and statements to the officers). In response, the State maintains that the search was authorized either by the plain view or consensual encounter exception to the warrant requirement.
Trial Court Concluded the Search was Lawful Under the Doctrines of Consent and Plain View
After hearing the evidence, the trial court found the warrantless search was permissible based on two exceptions to the warrant requirement. First, the search was consensual; second, even if the search had moved to an Agent stage, the plain view doctrine applied.
Established Case Law – Consensual Encounters
“‘The request to examine one’s identification does not make an encounter nonconsensual. Nor does the request to search a person’s belongings. The Fourth Amendment guarantees are not implicated in such an encounter unless the police officer has by either physical force or show of authority restrained the person’s liberty so that a reasonable person would not feel free to decline the officer’s requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. Once a person’s liberty has been restrained, the encounter loses its consensual nature and falls into one of the next two Supreme Court categories.’ ” State v. Hardin, 2005-Ohio-130, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.), quoting Taylor at 747-748. “Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980). See also State v. Penwell, 2021-Ohio-1216, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.).
Motion to Suppress Testimony
During the suppression hearing, the court heard testimony from Agent Travis Kling and Agent Travis Woodruff. For purposes of analysis, we have reviewed the suppression hearing transcripts and the exhibits, which included Agent Kling’s body cam video. The video began when Agent Kling arrived at the club and ended when he left the scene.
Inspection at Club Hollywood
Agent Kling was a police officer employed by the OIU, which is part of the Ohio Department of Public Safety (“Safety Dept.”). On August 25-26, 2024, the Safety Dept. initiated and completed an administrative inspection of a premises called “Club Hollywood” in Springfield, Ohio. Agent Kling testified that the inspection was done pursuant to provisions of the Ohio Administrative Code that authorize the Safety Dept. to determine compliance with provisions of the Liquor Control Act. Such inspections are allowed as long as a business is open or operating or appears to be open or operating.
Club Hollywood is located at 925 East Pleasant Street, Springfield, Ohio. The Ohio Investigative Unit conducted an administrative inspection of the tavern while it was open to the public. During the inspection Mr. Willie Weaver was outside on the steps, was armed with a firearm, taser and handcuffs but was not a licensed security guard in Ohio. Was Mr. Weaver permitted to work ‘under’ a licensed security guard?
Mr. Weaver was Presently Armed, Adorning a Body Camera, Taser and Handcuffs
OIU brought about five or six officers to the club and arrived at around 11:15 p.m. When Agent Kling arrived, he first encountered Mr. Weaver on the steps in front of the club, which was open for business. Agent Kling saw lights on inside the club’s window, and the door was open. Agent Kling also saw dance lights and patrons outside, and people were cooking food in a food truck. At the time, Mr. Weaver was wearing security garb, including a vest marked “Security.” When Agent Kling first approached Mr. Weaver, he saw the butt of a gun in a holster on Mr. Weaver’s person. Mr. Weaver also wore an attachment carrier on which a stun gun and multiple other items hung, including a body camera and cuffs. The OIU officers left the scene around 12:16 p.m. on August 26, i.e., about an hour after they had arrived.
Bar Owner Asked Agents if They Had a Search Warrant to Enter the Open Business
Agent Kling did not announce to Mr. Weaver why he was there but asked if Mr. Weaver was a licensed private security guard. Generally, licensed security guards have photo identification stating they have passed the firearms qualification, and they are required to carry that on their person. In response to the question, Mr. Weaver said he was licensed, but he did not have any identification or a driver’s license on his person. When Agent Kling told Mr. Weaver that he was required to carry a license in that capacity, Mr. Weaver stated that he worked for someone who did. The initial encounter between Agent Kling and Mr. Weaver was quite brief (less than a minute) because the bar owner, Mr. Travis Woodruff, asked if the officers had a search warrant.
Consequently, Agent Kling thought it prudent to explain to Mr. Woodruff that a search warrant was neither needed nor required. Agent Kling then went into the bar to conduct his investigation. Agent Kling did not take Mr. Weaver’s weapon, and Mr. Weaver was free to walk around the bar.
Consensual Encounter
This initial encounter fell within the category of a consensual encounter with no restraint on Mr. Weaver’s liberty and no need for objective justification. Agent Kling did testify, however, that when he went into the bar, he had a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Weaver was operating as a security guard in possession of a firearm without being licensed. While this is unneeded for a consensual encounter, we agree that the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Ohio Requires Security Guards are Licensed
O.R.C. Chap. §4749 governs licensing of private Agents and security services and, per O.R.C. §4749.02, is administered by the director of public safety. Under O.R.C. §4749.01, firearm license holders are separated into three classes – A, B, or C – depending on whether they are engaging in the business of private investigation, security services, or both. As relevant here, O.R.C. §4749.01(G) defines a “Class C license” as “a license issued under §4749.03 of the Revised Code that qualifies the person issued the license to engage only in the business of security services.” Before obtaining a license, applicants must provide various information and meet certain requirements specified in O.R.C. §4749.03(A), (B), and (C). These include passing an examination, providing references, submitting a set of fingerprints to the superintendent of the bureau of criminal investigation (“BCI”), undergoing a criminal records check, and so forth.
What is a Firearm?
Under O.R.C. §4749.03(C)(1), applicants who intend to carry a firearm as defined in §2923.11 of the Revised Code in the course of business or employment must notify the BCI superintendent. A “firearm” is defined in O.R.C. §2923.11(B)(1) as “any deadly weapon capable of expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or combustible propellant. ‘Firearm’ includes an unloaded firearm, and any firearm that is inoperable but that can readily be rendered operable.” Id.
Licensed Security Guards Must Complete a FBI Background Check
In this situation, after being notified of an applicant’s intent to carry a firearm, the BCI superintendent must ask the FBI for any information about the applicant and review it. The superintendent then submits all investigation reports to the public safety director. O.R.C. §4749.03(C)(2). If the application is approved, the director issues an A, B, or C license and provides the applicant with an identification card stating “the licensee’s name, the classification of the license, the location of the licensee’s principal place of business in this state, and the expiration date of the license. . . .” O.R.C. §4749.03(D).
Armed Security Guards Must Possess the License While Working
Furthermore, O.R.C. §4749.10(A) prohibits Class A, B, or C licensees and registered employees of a class A, B, or C licensee from carrying firearms in the course of the business of security services unless five listed requirements have been met. Among these requirements is that “[T]he licensee or employee receives a notation on the licensee’s or employee’s identification card that the licensee or employee is a firearm-bearer and carries the identification card whenever the licensee or employee carries a firearm in the course of engaging in the business of private investigation, the business of security services, or both businesses.” O.R.C. §4749.10(A)(3). See also O.R.C. §4749.06(A)-(D) (noting that even if individuals are providing security services for an entity that has a Class A, B, or C license, if these individuals intend to carry firearms in the course of business or employment, they must complete a firearms training program and must comply with the requirements of O.R.C. §4749.10). As noted, that includes carrying an identification card.
Mr. Weaver Creates his Own Reasonable Suspicion
Finally, O.R.C. §4749.13(A) prohibits people who are not licensed under O.R.C. Chap. §4749 from engaging in the business of security services; subdivision (D) also prohibits unlicensed people from holding themselves out as Class A, B, or C licensees. The penalty for violating these sections, respectively, is: (1) being charged with a first-degree misdemeanor crime; or (2) being assessed a fine between $100 and $1,000 or a year in prison, or both. See O.R.C. §4749.99(A) and (B). Thus, even though Mr. Weaver was not ultimately charged with a crime under this statute, when Agent Kling saw that Mr. Weaver was armed with a gun, was operating as a security guard, and was unable to produce an identification card, Agent Kling had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Mr. Weaver Denied Being a Convicted Felon
As noted, before entering the bar, Agent Kling already had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In total, OIU was on the scene for only about an hour. Agent Kling’s liquor inspection of the bar records and liquor stock lasted a bit more than 11 minutes; Mr. Weaver was not involved in that situation. At that point, Agent Kling asked another officer if the security guard had been identified yet. Agent Kling then asked Mr. Weaver if he had any felonies, and Mr. Weaver said no. In fact, Mr. Weaver stated several times during the encounter that he did not have any felony convictions.
Mr. Weaver Claims He Was Working for Someone Who Had a License
At the beginning of Agent Kling’s second conversation with Mr. Weaver, Agent Kling explained that even if Mr. Weaver were employed by someone who had a firearm license, Mr. Weaver was required to have his own license. Based on this discussion and Mr. Weaver’s reaction on the video, he appeared to acknowledge that he did not have a firearm license. Agent Kling then told Mr. Weaver he needed to check the gun to make sure it was not stolen. Agent Kling took the gun, unloaded it, and found the serial number.
Plain View Doctrine Facts
This was when the plain view exception became relevant. According to Mr. Weaver, this was the only exception that could arguably have applied in the case before us. In this regard, Mr. Weaver argues that carrying a weapon is not illegal in Ohio, and the gun was not stolen, as Agent Kling stated.
Established Case Law – Plain View Doctrine
“One exception to the warrant requirement is the ‘plain view’ doctrine, first expressly established in Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564. In essence, the plain view doctrine allows police officers, under particular circumstances, to seize an ‘article of incriminating character’ which is not described in their search warrant.” State v. Halczyszak, 25 Ohio St.3d 301, 303 (1986). Under this doctrine, “an officer may seize an object in plain view without a warrant if (1) the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be viewed, (2) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent, and (3) the officer has a right to access the object where it is located.” State v. Burroughs, 2022-Ohio-2146, ¶ 15, citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-137 (1990).
Established Case Law – Probable Cause
These criteria were met here. Agent Kling had the right to be at the bar, and he immediately saw the gun in a holster on Mr. Weaver’s hip. Concerning “the second requirement of the plain-view doctrine, the police need to have probable cause, with some narrow exceptions, to immediately believe upon discovery of the article in plain view that it is obviously incriminating evidence or contraband.” State v. Willoughby, 81 Ohio App.3d 562, 568 (6th Dist. 1992), citing Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 (1987). Notably, “probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It merely requires that the facts available to the officer would ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ . . . that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false.” Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983), quoting Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). “A ‘practical, nontechnical’ probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required.” Id., quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 (1949).
Court Determines Mr. Weaver’s Firearm was in Plain View
When Agent Kling took the gun, he reasonably believed Mr. Weaver was engaged in security services without being licensed, and the gun, therefore, was involved in criminal activity. That the gun was eventually found not to be stolen was irrelevant. The focus is on the circumstances when the gun was seized. Confirming whether the gun was stolen took several minutes due to difficulty reading the serial number and because the gun initially turned up as having been stolen. Agent Kling later discovered it was not stolen. Apparently, manufacturer serial numbers can overlap, and this weapon’s make differed from one with the same serial number that had been stolen. Agent Kling also had the authority to access the gun where it was located, as he had arrest authority in Clark County. Accordingly, the trial court correctly applied the plain view doctrine.
Court Determines Encounter was Consensual But Just In Case …
The trial court found the entire proceeding consensual based on various factors like the lack of any show of force and that the officers used appropriate language and tone of voice. We agree. However, even if this were otherwise, another recognized exception “to the warrant requirement is an investigative detention, commonly referred to as the Terry stop. Under Terry . . . a police officer may detain an individual without probable cause when the officer has reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts, that criminal activity is afoot.”State v. Bursey, 2021-Ohio-2857, ¶ 19 (2d Dist.), quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21.
Established Case Law – Reasonable Suspicion
“Reasonable suspicion entails some minimal level of objective justification for making a stop – that is, something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch,’ but less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause.” State v. Jones, 70 Ohio App.3d 554, 556-557 (2d Dist. 1990), quoting Terry at 27. The test for assessing this is objective and considers the totality of the circumstances, “viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene who must react to events as they unfold.” State v. Andrews, 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87-88 (1991), citing United States v. Hall, 525 F.2d 857, 859 (D.C. Cir. 1976), and State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291, 295 (1980).
Mr. Weaver – Suspect Cautions
While checking the gun’s serial number, Agent Kling received information from Agent Love, who had run Mr. Weaver’s name and date of birth. Once Mr. Weaver was identified, it was found that he had “suspect cautions” associated with his LEADS file. The caution was basically that officers should be cautious in interacting with Mr. Weaver. This prompted further investigation. Love had shown Agent Kling information on OLEG (a law enforcement database), and Agent Kling was able to see that Mr. Weaver had an FBI number and a BCI number.
Mr. Weaver had a violent felony tag from New York.
To investigate this, Agent Kling spent time on the phone with a police post, which had to create an incident report in order to run a records check. After being on hold for some time, Agent Kling learned that all charges in Ohio had been dismissed, but Mr. Weaver had a violent felony tag from New York.
Mr. Weaver had felony offenses from Pennsylvania and New York, including a weapons conviction.
After ending the first phone call at around 39:40, Agent Kling told Mr. Weaver about the report of a felony conviction for robbery in New York, which was a felony of violence. Because Mr. Weaver continued to deny any prior convictions, Agent Kling then called the Intelligence Center in Columbus. After again being on hold for some time, Agent Kling was told that Mr. Weaver had felony offenses from Pennsylvania and New York, including a weapons conviction.
Agents Took a Picture of Mr. Weaver and Retained his Firearm
However, the Intelligence Center was unable to provide a booking photo for comparison at that point. When Mr. Weaver continued to deny any involvement, the OIU officers decided to take Mr. Weaver’s photo rather than arrest him. They also said they would retain the gun and continue to attempt to verify the information. In addition, they stated the gun would be returned to Mr. Weaver if his story checked out. After taking the photo, the officers left around 12:16 a.m.
Conclusion
Based on the video and the totality of the circumstances, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the OIU officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Mr. Weaver had committed a crime and did not unreasonably detain him. Any delay was unavoidable due to the difficulty in obtaining information. In fact, when the officers left, they were still attempting to verify whether Mr. Weaver had the alleged felony convictions of violence. Because of this, they simply took Mr. Weaver’s photo and did not arrest him. The video also indicated that the police were very cordial, did not coerce Mr. Weaver in any way, and did not make a show of force. In fact, during parts of the video, Mr. Weaver was joking and chatting with the police.
Holding
Based on the preceding discussion, the trial court did not err in overruling the motion to suppress. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
Note: There was a second appeal that the state failed to prove Mr. Weaver was a convicted felon. That appeal was also denied though it is not evaluated in this article.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Weaver, 2025 – Ohio – 2256.
State v. Weaver, 2025 – Ohio – 2256 was issued by the Second District Appellate Court on June 27, 2025 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Champaign, Clark, Darke, Greene, Miami and Montgomery.
Lessons Learned:
- Who can conduct liquor establishment inspections? Restrictions on Warrantless Administrative Inspections Ohio Administrative Code 4301:1-1-79 “Warrantless administrative inspections may be conducted by authorized agents or employees of the division of liquor control, the department of public safety, or peace officers … subject to the following limitations as to time, place, and scope: (A) Inspections shall be conducted for the limited purpose of determining compliance with the provisions of the liquor control act and the rules of the liquor control commission or the division of liquor control. (B) Inspections may be conducted only during those hours in which the permit holder is open for business and only by authorized agents of the division of liquor control, the department of public safety, or by any peace officer …”. Also, Obstructing Inspection or Search of Premises ProhibitedR.C. §4301.66 “No person shall hinder or obstruct any agent or employee of the division of liquor control, any enforcement agent of the department of public safety, or any officer of the law, from making inspection or search of any place, other than a bona fide private residence, where beer or intoxicating liquor is possessed, kept, sold, or given away.” Consequently, Ohio law enforcement may conduct a liquor compliance inspection while the establishment is open for business.
- Was Mr. Weaver Seized at the Moment the Agents Encountered him on the Steps of Club Hollywood? Here the court concluded “This initial encounter fell within the category of a consensual encounter with no restraint on Mr. Weaver’s liberty and no need for objective justification.”.
- Did the Agents Establish Reasonable Suspicion to Further Detain Mr. Weaver? The court concluded “Agent Kling did testify, however, that when he went into the bar, he had a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Weaver was operating as a security guard in possession of a firearm without being licensed. While this is unneeded for a consensual encounter, we agree that the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”
- Was Mr. Weaver’s Firearm in Plain View? On Monday June 4, 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court issued Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990) and established the Plain View Doctrine three-part test. 1) Law enforcement must be legally on the premises from where the observation is made. 2) Law enforcement must not violate the Fourth Amendment to make the observation. 3) The incriminating nature of the item must be immediately apparent. Here, Mr. Weaver was wearing the firearm on his side while he sat on the steps to Club Hollywood. The agents did not violate any of the three prongs established in Horton. For more on the Plain View Doctrine see: Can an Incomplete Search Warrant Create a New Legal Doctrine?
Does your agency train on Firearms Statutes?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!