According to a Montgomery County Trial Court Judge it was the Officer.
Not According to the Appellate Court
Mr. Williams’s flight terminated the traffic stop before it was ever extended, and Officer Carter’s intentions were preempted when Mr. Williams ran.
State v. Williams
Second District Appellate Court
Montgomery County, Ohio
March 13, 2026
Why is this case important?
State v. Williams is important because it clarifies that a traffic stop is not unlawfully prolonged when the suspect’s own actions—here, flight—cut the stop short before any extension actually occurs. The case reinforces that courts will focus on what actually happened in real time, not what the officer may have intended to do next. The Williams case also provides a good review for both State v. Lozada, 92 Ohio St.3d 74 (2001) and United States v. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. 348 (2015).
Background
Trial Court Suppresses Evidence Against Mr. Williams
State Appealed
On May 14, 2025, Mr. Williams was charged by way of complaint with obstructing official business in connection with his flight from the scene of a traffic stop. On August 1, 2025, Mr. Williams filed a motion to suppress. Following a hearing, the court sustained the motion in part, and the State timely appealed. Before addressing the State’s sole assignment of error, we review the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing and the trial court’s decision in favor of Mr. Williams.
Illegally Parked Car
Rookie Officer
Scantily Clad Woman
Mr. Williams is on Probation
Dayton Police Officer Austin Carter testified that on May 12, 2025, at around 10:00 p.m. and while on patrol alone, he proceeded to the area of 2500 Oakridge Drive near Walton Avenue in a marked cruiser on a complaint by an RTA bus driver that a car was illegally parked and blocking a bus stop. Officer Carter had been a police officer for less than a year at the time, and he was still under a probationary period with the police department. Upon arrival, Officer Carter observed a vehicle matching the description that he received, and it was situated directly adjacent to a “no parking” sign. From his cruiser, he ran the plate on the vehicle and determined that the registered owner was not from Dayton. Officer Carter activated his lights, approached the passenger side door according to his routine practice, and saw two occupants. Mr. Williams was in the driver’s seat, and a woman was in the front passenger seat. The woman was “not wearing a lot of clothing.” Officer Carter advised the occupants of the reason for the stop, and then he walked to the driver’s side, obtained Mr. Williams’s driver’s license, and returned to his cruiser. He viewed a LEADS output for “warrants, probation,” and reviewed Mr. Williams’s “history with us as well.”
The bus stop in area of 2500 Oakridge Drive near Walton Avenue in Dayton, Ohio where Mr. Williams blocked the bus stop.
Rookie had a Gut Feeling
Officer Carter learned that Mr. Williams was on federal probation or parole for weapons and drug trafficking, which heightened his concerns about the stop because in his experience, drugs and weapons go together. He testified that he “just didn’t feel safe with him in the car.” For his own safety, Officer Carter removed Mr. Williams and patted him down, finding no weapons. Next, according to Officer Carter’s testimony, they “head[ed] back to the car because I explain[ed] to him, ‘I’m just going to put you in the back seat.’” At that moment, Mr. Williams fled. When asked if he had intended to issue a citation to Mr. Williams for the parking violation, Officer Carter said: At this point still had not – I was separating him and his passenger from the car so that I could talk to the passenger as well to figure out what they were gonna do in there. At that point in time I was not going to cite him for parking. I was going to give him a warning. I also wanted to figure out a business we were doing out here as well.
Mr. Williams flees on Foot
Officer Carter pursued Mr. Williams on foot but was unable to find him. He stated that there were officers in unmarked police cars in the area who also engaged in the search, along with a canine, but Mr. Williams was not located. The female passenger was allowed to leave, and the vehicle was towed from the scene. A portion of Officer Carter’s body camera video was played for the court.
Officer Carter was in the Information Gathering Stage when Mr. Williams Fled
On cross examination, Officer Carter acknowledged that he did not see any contraband or weapons in the vehicle. He testified that he did not recall if Officer Carter had a valid driver’s license, and he stated that Mr. Williams was not in violation of his federal probation. Officer Carter stated that from the beginning of the stop, he suspected that Mr. Williams and the woman were engaged in prostitution, based on his training and experience, the fact that they were parked in a car with tinted windows, and the way the woman was dressed. Officer Carter intended to investigate. His testimony suggested that Mr. Williams had “history with this.” Officer Carter said that he intended to “have a conversation” with Mr. Williams and the female passenger about “what they were doing tonight. Why they were there.” On redirect examination, Officer Carter testified that issuing a traffic citation was within his discretion. He had not ruled out doing so, and he was still gathering information.
Trial Court Determines Mr. Williams was Unreasonably Detained Beyond the Scope of the Stop
The trial court determined that Mr. Williams committed a traffic violation when he illegally parked his vehicle, giving Officer Carter sufficient probable cause to stop and detain him to issue a citation. The court next evaluated the “the totality of the stop as a whole and whether [Mr. Williams] was unreasonably detained beyond the scope” of the stop. The court found that Officer Carter was permitted to ask Mr. Williams for his driver’s license, “run ordinary inquiries and searches of [Mr. Williams’s] driver’s license” to check for outstanding warrants, ascertain the status of his vehicle registration, and ask for proof of insurance. The court determined that Officer Carter was justified in removing Mr. Williams for a pat down for officer safety and that doing so did not prolong the traffic stop longer than necessary. The court’s decision merely noted that Mr. Williams was on parole for “federal gun related offenses” without mention of Mr. Williams’s drug trafficking history.
Trial Court Concluded Officer Carter Did not Come to a Final Decision when Mr. Williams was Removed from His Vehicle
The court next considered Officer Carter’s testimony that he advised Mr. Williams that he intended to put him in his cruiser. It was significant to the court that at “no point during the officer’s interactions with [Mr. Williams] did the officer refer to writing a citation or begin to write a warning or citation for the violation.” The court found the following statements by Officer Carter on direct and cross-examination about his intention to issue a citation to be determinative: “At that point in time, I was not going to cite him for the parking violation. I was going to give him a warning,” and “I was going to have a conversation with him.” The court found that before Officer Carter asked Mr. Williams to sit in his cruiser, “his interactions were lawful inquiries and within the scope of the traffic stop,” but the court concluded that when Officer Carter asked Mr. Williams to have a seat in his cruiser, “this action prolonged the stop and . . . unlawfully detained [Mr. Williams] beyond the original purpose of the traffic stop.” The court determined that Officer Carter “had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity giving reason to further detain [Mr. Williams].” The court granted the motion to suppress in part “as to the continued detention of [Mr. Williams].”
Appeal – [T]rial court erred in finding that Officer Carter lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to extend the traffic stop.
The State asserts one assignment of error. According to the State, the trial court erred in finding that Officer Carter lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to extend the traffic stop. For the following reasons, we conclude that the stop was not extended because William’s flight preempted any investigation by Officer Carter.
Established Case Law – Terry v. Ohio
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). “Warrantless searches and seizures violate this prohibition unless conducted pursuant to one of ‘few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.’” State v. Mee, 2017-Ohio-7343, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967). One such exception “‘is commonly known as an investigative or Terry stop,’ which includes the temporary detention of motorists for the enforcement of traffic laws.” Id., quoting State v. Dorsey, 2005- Ohio-2334, ¶ 17 (10th Dist.).
Established Case Law – A Person is Seized During a Traffic Stop
“Though not necessarily requiring a warrant, the temporary ‘detention of [persons] during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a “seizure” of “persons” within the meaning’ of the Fourth Amendment.” Mee at ¶ 13, quoting Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-810 (1996). “An ‘automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be “unreasonable” under the circumstances.’” Id., quoting Whren at 810. “Generally, a police officer’s decision to stop an automobile will comport with this requirement if the officer has a ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal activity.” Id.
Established Case Law – The Rodriguez Moment
A “seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation, therefore, ‘become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission’ of issuing a ticket for the violation.” Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 350 (2015), quoting Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407 (2005). Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission during a traffic stop typically includes “checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance.” Id at 355. “These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. Id. “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.” Id. at 354.
Established Case Law – Removal of the Drive and a Pat Down
Ohio law permits a police officer to order a motorist to step out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop without requiring any additional constitutional “quantum of suspicion.” State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405, 408 (1993). This authority, derived from Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), is considered a minimal intrusion that is justified by officer safety concerns. State v. Lozada, 92 Ohio St.3d 74, 81 (2001). “However, taking the additional step of placing a driver in a patrol car during a routine traffic stop—and the pat-down search that would normally precede such a step—increases the intrusive nature of the detention and must be justified by reasons beyond those that necessitated the traffic stop.” State v. McCaulley, 2005-Ohio-2864, ¶ 11(2d Dist.), citing Lozada at 79. “Such a step may be justified if it protects the officers or the driver from a dangerous condition during the traffic stop” or “if the officer has a reasonable, articulable belief that an individual is armed and/or dangerous or is engaged in criminal activity.” “An officer’s convenience, however, will not justify placing a driver in the rear of a cruiser.” Id., citing Lozada at 76. While “the failure to produce a driver’s license during a traffic stop is a lawful reason for detaining a driver in a patrol car, an officer . . . may not place a driver in his cruiser as a matter of course while he runs the license information through the computer.” Id, citing Lozada at 77, 79.
Established Case Law – No Fishing Expeditions
“If, however, the officer ‘ascertained reasonably articulable facts giving rise to a suspicion of criminal activity, the officer may then further detain and implement a more in depth investigation of the individual.’” State v. Kincaid, 2024-Ohio-2668, ¶ 18 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 241 (1997). “The detention of the motorist may last as long as the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity continues.” Id. The legality of the initial stop, however, “will not support a ‘fishing expedition’ for evidence of another crime.” Id., quoting State v. Venham, 96 Ohio App.3d 649, 655 (4th Dist. 1994). The officer “‘may not expand the investigative scope of the detention beyond that which is reasonably necessary to effectuate the purposes of the initial stop unless any new or expanded investigation is supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion that some further criminal actively is afoot.’” State v. Roberts, 2023-Ohio-2763, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Woodson, 2008-Ohio-670, ¶ 12 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Batchili, 2007-Ohio-2204, ¶ 34.
Mr. Williams’s flight terminated the traffic stop before it was ever extended, and Officer Carter’s intentions were preempted when Officer Carter ran.
Here, Mr. Williams fled the scene before Officer Carter had any opportunity to complete the traffic stop. Officer Carter, working alone and at night, knew that Mr. Williams had a criminal history involving both drugs and weapons, a significant cause for concern. The record at least suggests that Mr. Williams may have had a history with the police department as well. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, Officer Carter suspected that Mr. Williams and the female passenger were engaged in prostitution based on observable facts and circumstances, namely the location of the vehicle, the tinted windows, and the passenger’s limited clothing, as well as Officer Carter’s law enforcement experience. In the body camera video, the female passenger is wearing a strapless top, and pants or shorts are not visible on her legs. The record reflects that Officer Carter intended to place Mr. Williams in his cruiser for safety reasons and for investigating suspected prostitution—and not merely for checking Mr. Williams’s license or for the officer’s own convenience. Officer Carter was denied the opportunity to do so when Mr. Williams fled. In other words, Mr. Williams’s flight terminated the traffic stop before it was ever extended, and Officer Carter’s intentions were preempted when Mr. Williams ran. Though the court found that Officer Carter definitively decided not to issue a citation for the parking violation before attempting to escort Mr. Williams to his cruiser, Officer Carter’s testimony is not clear on that point, as set forth above. Regardless of whether Officer Carter intended to issue a citation or a warning, or neither, however, the stop was not prolonged before Mr. Williams fled. Video of the traffic stop supports this conclusion. Mr. Williams was patted down near the rear of his car, and he fled as he stepped past his rear bumper, between his car and the cruiser. Four minutes and a few seconds elapsed between the time Officer Carter activated his lights to commence the stop and Mr. Williams’s flight, and Mr. Williams ran less than fifteen seconds after getting out of his car. See State v. Gurley, 2015-Ohio5361, ¶ 24 (4th Dist.) (citing precedent that fifteen and twenty-minute detentions for traffic stops are reasonable). Here, the stop was of much shorter duration due solely to Officer Carter’s flight. For the foregoing reasons, the State’s assignment error is sustained. Conclusion
Conclusion and Holding
Having sustained the State’s assignment of error, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Williams, 2026 – Ohio – 860.
State v. Williams, 2026 – Ohio – 860 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
- What is a Gut Feeling? Law enforcement officers will often discuss their own ‘Sixth Sense’ and how they use it when investigating criminal activity. This is also called a ‘gut feeling’. In the book Primal Leadership it states in pertinent part “The amygdala [this is part of our brain], then, lets us know its conclusions primarily through circuitry extending into the gastrointestinal tract that, literally, creates a gut feeling. Gut feelings offer a guide when facing a complex decision that goes beyond the data at hand. Gut feeling, in fact, has gained new scientific respect because of recent discoveries about implicit learning – that is, the lessons in life we pick up without being aware that we’re learning.”. Goleman, R. Boyatzis, A. McKee, Primal Leadership, 44, Harvard Business School Press (2013). So, this sixth sense or gut feeling IS REAL. Most often it has kept law enforcement officers, maybe even you, alive in many dangerous encounters. Even though the excerpt states that gut feelings have gained new scientific respect, it has not and likely never will gain legal justification. Here, Rookie Officer Carter had a gut feeling AND he was right! This was an exceptional catch by a rookie officer who recognized that a vehicle parked at a bus stop – those who cannot obey firearms laws will quickly dismiss a petty parking restriction near a bus stop – and that led to a lawful arrest of Mr. Williams.
- The Lozada Limitation – On June 20, 2001 the Supreme Court of Ohio issued State v. Lozada, 92 Ohio St.3d 74 (2001). Based on both Mimms and Wilson, law enforcement may order the driver and/or passengers out of a vehicle that is lawfully stopped. However, ordering the occupants out of the car does NOT give law enforcement the authority to place either driver or passenger(s) in the back seat of the cruiser with a pat down. On June 20, 2001 the Supreme Court of Ohio held “[W]e hold that during a routine traffic stop, it is unreasonable for an officer to search the driver for weapons before placing him or her in a patrol car, if the sole reason for placing the driver in the patrol car during the investigation is for the convenience of the officer.” Id at 77. So how should the Lozada limitation be applied? Ohio Law enforcement cannot place the driver or passenger in the back seat of the cruiser if the reason is the officer’s convenience. What is an officer’s convenience? This would include most interactions at the roadside between law enforcement and citizens. Law enforcement cannot place occupants in the back seat to issue a citation, which would be the most common application. If an officer needs to segregate an occupant from others inside the vehicle to question the person, then that too would most likely be inhibited under Lozada as the officer could question the occupant roadside as opposed to within the cruiser. What may not be considered the officers’ convenience would be extreme weather. If it is raining excessively hard, strong winds and extreme cold may be examples. Here, Officer Carter never got to the point of patting down Mr. Williams as he fled on foot.
- Rodriguez Moment – On April 21, 2015 the issued United States v. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) 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. In this case Mr. Williams extended the stop, not Officer Carter as the court opined “Mr. Williams’s flight terminated the traffic stop before it was ever extended, and Officer Carter’s intentions were preempted when Mr. Williams ran.”.
- Headlong Flight – On January 12, 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court explained “Headlong flight-wherever it occurs – is the consummate act of evasion: it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such.”. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) In this case, Mr. Williams engaged in headlong flight as he was escorted from his vehicle to the Dayton Police Cruiser.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Dayton Police Officer Austin Carter and the Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office should be highly commended for their investigation, arrest and successful appeal of Mr. Williams. 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!