[Cite as State v. Caulfield, 2013-Ohio-3029.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
MICHELLE CAULFIELD
Defendant-Appellee
Appellate Case No. 25573
Trial Court Case No. 2012-CR-1684
(Criminal Appeal from (Common Pleas Court) ...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 12th day of July, 2013.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by R. LYNN NOTHSTINE, Atty. Reg. #0061560, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant
VICTOR A. HODGE, Atty. Reg. No. 0007298, Assistant Public Defender, Law Office of the Public Defender, 117 South Main Street, Suite 400, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee 2
.............
WELBAUM, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, the State of Ohio, appeals from the trial court’s decision
granting a motion to suppress evidence filed by Defendant-Appellee, Michelle Caulfield. The
evidence at issue was discovered as a result of a deputy searching Caulfield’s purse while she
was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation. The driver of the vehicle was
subsequently arrested due to an outstanding warrant.
{¶ 2} The State contends that the evidence obtained as a result of searching Caulfield’s
purse should not have been suppressed because the search and seizure of the purse was
reasonable for officer safety. The State also contends that the search was conducted pursuant to
Caulfield’s consent.
{¶ 3} In response, Caulfield claims that the evidence was correctly suppressed because
the deputy illegally detained her after the driver’s arrest. Caulfield also claims that the deputy
did not have credible grounds to search her purse.
{¶ 4} We conclude that Caulfield’s detention was lawful, but that the suppression
decision must still be sustained. The trial court’s findings indicate that Caulfield did not consent
to have her purse searched by the deputy, and the record indicates that: (1) the deputy did not
have reasonable grounds to believe that there was contraband in the vehicle relating to the arrest;
(2) the arrested driver was not within the vicinity of the vehicle at the time of the search
justifying a search incident to arrest; (3) there is no evidence that any contraband was discovered
in the vehicle prior to the search of Caulfield’s purse; and (4) the driver’s consent to search the
vehicle did not extend to Caulfield’s purse. Under these circumstances, the search of 3
Caulfield’s purse was unreasonable and in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.
I. Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 5} At 1:40 a.m. on January 20, 2012, Michelle Caulfield was riding as a front-seat
passenger in a vehicle traveling on Far Hills Avenue in Centerville, Ohio. Deputy Lawrence
Tyree of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department observed that the license plate of the
vehicle carrying Caulfield was completely obstructed by snow. As a result, Tyree initiated a
traffic stop for purposes of issuing a citation. During the traffic stop, Tyree obtained
identification from the driver and Caulfield, and ran their information through the LEADS
system. The system indicated that the driver was under suspension, that he had a prior drug
suspension, and that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. No information was returned on
Caulfield.
{¶ 6} Upon learning that the driver had an active warrant, Tyree called for a back-up
officer to assist him. Deputy Matthew Wright of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office
arrived on the scene a few minutes later. Tyree then arrested the driver pursuant to the warrant,
and the driver gave consent for the deputies to search his vehicle. Tyree took the driver to his
police cruiser while Wright approached Caulfield, who was sitting in the front-passenger seat.
Wright asked Caulfield to exit the vehicle so that he could conduct a search. The trial court
found that Caulfield attempted to take her purse with her as she exited the vehicle, but Wright
ordered her to leave it in the vehicle. Wright also ordered Caulfield to stand in front of the
vehicle.
{¶ 7} Wright testified that he had no reason to believe that Caulfield had committed a 4
crime, but that he detained her as a “necessary corollary of a traffic stop.” Transcript, p. 42, ln.
10-12. After Caulfield left her purse and exited the vehicle, Wright searched Caulfield’s purse
while Tyree simultaneously searched the interior of the vehicle. The deputies did not conduct a
protective pat down search on Caulfield. Wright claimed that Caulfield gave him consent to
search her purse. Caulfield claimed that she never consented to the search of her purse, and the
trial court accepted her testimony.
{¶ 8} Tyree discovered unidentified pills in the tray of the center console of the
vehicle. The pills were later identified as vitamins. Wright discovered unknown pills, syringes,
marihuana, two scales, and various plastic baggies in Caulfield’s purse. Wright arrested
Caulfield, and asked her if she was carrying anything else. Caulfield responded by disclosing
that she had drugs and drug paraphernalia in her bra. Tyree then noticed a plastic bag sticking
out of the top of Caulfield’s shirt and removed it. Tyree suspected that the substance in the
plastic bag was crystal meth. Tyree contacted the Centerville Police Department to request that
a female officer be dispatched to conduct a pat-down on Caulfield. Once the female officer
arrived, a pat-down was conducted, and a black pouch was discovered in Caulfield’s bra. The
pouch contained a substance later identified as crystal meth.
{¶ 9} On July 27, 2012, Caulfield was indicted on two counts of Aggravated
Possession of Drugs (Schedule I or II), one count of Possession of Marihuana, one count of
Possession of Drugs (Schedule III, IV, or V), and one count of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
On August 22, 2012, Caulfield filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from her purse
and undergarments on grounds that it was obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure.
{¶ 10} The trial court granted the motion to suppress. The trial court concluded that 5
Caulfield was illegally seized because there were no articulable facts giving rise to a suspicion of
illegal activity that justified extending Caulfield’s detention after the driver was arrested.
Additionally, the trial court concluded that even if Caulfield was not illegally seized, the search
of her purse was illegal because the State presented insufficient evidence to warrant the
application of the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement. The State appeals the trial
court’s ruling on the motion to suppress.
II. Did the Trial Court Err in Granting Caulfield’s Motion to Suppress?
{¶ 11} The State’s sole assignment of error states that:
The Trial Court Erred by Granting Michelle Caulfield’s Motion to
Suppress the Drug and Drug Paraphernalia Evidence Where it Was Objectively
Reasonable for the Officer to Order Caulfield to Leave Her Purse in the Vehicle
He Intended to Search, and Caulfield Consented to the Search of Her Purse.
{¶ 12} Under this assignment of error, the State argues that the evidence discovered
should not have been suppressed because it was lawfully obtained. Specifically, the State claims
that Wright acted reasonably when he ordered Caulfield to leave her purse in the vehicle, and that
Caulfield consented to Wright searching the purse.
{¶ 13} Caulfield argues that the trial court correctly suppressed the evidence because
Wright lacked a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify continuing her detainment
after the driver’s arrest. Caulfield also argues that Wright lacked credible grounds to search her
purse, and that she was subject to an illegal search and seizure.
{¶ 14} The overall issue in this case is whether Caulfield’s interaction with Wright 6
resulted in an illegal search and seizure that requires suppression of the evidence. Specifically,
we must decide whether the facts determined by the trial court establish: (1) an illegal seizure of
Caulfield as a result of her continued detainment; and /or (2) an illegal search and seizure of
Caulfield’s purse. We will analyze each sub-issue separately.
{¶ 15} As a preliminary matter, we note that in ruling on motions to suppress, “the trial
court assumes the role of the trier of fact, and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions
of fact and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.” State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586,
592, 639 N.E.2d 498 (2d Dist.1994), citing State v. Clay, 34 Ohio St.2d 250, 298 N.E.2d 137
(1972). Accordingly, when we review suppression decisions, “we are bound to accept the trial
court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Accepting those
facts as true, we must independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial
court's conclusion, whether they meet the applicable legal standard.” Id.
A. Was Caulfield Illegally Seized As a Result of Her Continued
Detainment After the Driver’s Arrest?
{¶ 16} “When a lawfully stopped vehicle contains passengers, the Fourth Amendment
permits law enforcement officers to detain those passengers for the duration of the lawful
detention of the driver.” State v. Brown, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20336, 2004-Ohio-4058, ¶
14, citing Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41 (1997).
{¶ 17} In State v. Williams, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22924, 2009-Ohio-1627, a driver
was pulled over due to a passenger littering, and was detained beyond the initial reason for the
stop due to the passenger being arrested for an outstanding warrant. Id. at ¶ 3-5. The driver 7
was not suspected of any criminal activity, but the officer advised the driver that he was going to
conduct a search of the driver’s vehicle incident to the passenger’s arrest. Id. at ¶ 5. As a result
of the search, the officer discovered that the driver was carrying concealed weapons inside the
passenger compartment. Id. at ¶ 6. We stated the following regarding the driver’s continued
detainment after the passenger’s arrest:
Much like a passenger can be detained by the police for the duration of a
lawful stop of the driver, State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780, 876 N.E.2d
1304, 2007-Ohio-4575, we believe the driver may be detained for the period of
time reasonably necessary for the officer to complete its investigation of a
passenger. A search incident to the arrest of the passenger must be “
‘contemporaneous’ with the arrest, occurring at or very near the time of the
arrest.”Murrell, 94 Ohio St.3d at 495, 764 N.E.2d 986. Accordingly, the length
of the driver's continued detention while the search incident to an arrest occurs
would be minimal. Considering that the purpose of the search is to protect the
officers from weapons that the arrestee may have in the vehicle and to prevent the
destruction of evidence, the continued detention of the driver during this
“contemporaneous” search is not unreasonable. Williams at ¶ 32.
{¶ 18} The facts of Williams are similar to the facts of the present case, with the
exception that, in Williams, the driver was detained incident to the passenger’s arrest as opposed
to the passenger being detained incident to the driver’s arrest. Additionally, the search of the
vehicle in the present case was lawfully conducted based on the driver’s consent, not as a lawful
search incident to arrest. However, these distinctions do not prevent us from applying the 8
principle set forth in Williams. Just like the driver in Williams, Caulfield’s ability to continue
her means of travel was interrupted, and she was detained as a result of the driver’s arrest and the
lawful search of the vehicle.
{¶ 19} Williams provides that the continued detention of the driver during a lawful
search is not unreasonable if it is contemporaneous with the arrest. Furthermore, “[t]he
temporary seizure of driver and passengers ordinarily continues, and remains reasonable, for the
duration of the stop. Normally, the stop ends when the police have no further need to control the
scene, and inform the driver and passengers they are free to leave.” (Citation omitted.) Arizona
v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 333, 129 S. Ct. 781, 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2009). In this case, the search
of the vehicle was conducted contemporaneously with the driver’s arrest and the search was
lawful pursuant to the driver’s consent. The stop had not ended after the driver’s arrest because
the police had to continue to control the scene for purposes of searching the vehicle. Caulfield
was detained incident to the lawful search of the vehicle. Accordingly, Caulfield’s detention
was reasonable and not illegal.
B. Was the Search and Seizure of Caulfield’s Purse Lawful?
{¶ 20} Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a warrant based
on probable cause is required to effectuate a lawful search and seizure unless one of the
recognized exceptions applies. State v. Holloway, 2d Dist. Clark No. 04CA0070,
2006–Ohio–4797, ¶ 15–16, citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d
576 (1967). Valid consent to search is one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant
requirement. State v. Moon, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 9288, 1986 WL 2368, *1 (Feb. 14, 1986), 9
citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v.
Barker, 53 Ohio St.2d 135, 372 N.E.2d 1324 (1978). A search incident to a lawful custodial
arrest is another exception to the warrant requirement that is at issue in this case since the driver
was arrested prior to the search of the vehicle and Caulfield’s purse. State v. Myers, 119 Ohio
App.3d 376, 380, 695 N.E.2d 327 (2d Dist. 1997), citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89
S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). We will determine whether: (1) the driver’s consent to
search the vehicle validates the warrantless search of Caulfield’s purse; (2) the search was
reasonable for officer safety; and (3) the purse was lawfully searched incident to the driver’s
arrest.
1. Consent
{¶ 21} For a warrantless search to be valid based on consent, “[t]he State is required to
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that consent to the search was freely and voluntarily
given.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Powell, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2012 CA 14,
2012-Ohio-5104, ¶ 17.
{¶ 22} In this case, there is contradictory testimony concerning whether Caulfield
consented to the search of her purse. While the trial court’s decision did not directly address
Caulfield’s consent in its findings of fact, the court indicated that it found Caulfield to be
credible. The court also concluded that an illegal search occurred. This conclusion necessarily
implies the corollary finding that Caulfield did not consent to the search. Because the trial court
is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate the credibility of witnesses,
Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d at 592, 639 N.E.2d 498, we must accept the trial court’s finding that 10
Caulfield did not consent to the search of her purse.
{¶ 23} It is not disputed that the deputies obtained valid consent from the driver to
search the vehicle which contained Caulfield’s purse. However, the driver’s consent to search
the vehicle does not extend to Caulfield’s purse. Proper consent can be given by a third party,
but the third-party must possess “common authority over the area sought to be searched.” State
v. Miller, 117 Ohio App.3d 750, 759, 691 N.E.2d 703 (11th Dist. 1997), citing United States v.
Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974). (Other citation omitted.)
“Common authority rests ‘on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access
or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants
has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk
that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.’ ” State v. Pugh, 2d
Dist. Montgomery No. 25223, 2013-Ohio-1238, ¶ 9, citing Matlock at 172, fn. 7. “[T]he United
States Supreme Court has applied a ‘reasonable belief’ standard for determining whether a police
officer’s reliance upon the consent of a third party was proper under particular circumstances.”
Miller at 759. “That is, before a trial court can conclude that a warrantless search was valid on
the basis of a third-party consent, it must find that the facts of the case supported a reasonable
belief on the part of the police officer that the third party had the authority to consent to the
search.” Id. at 759-760.
{¶ 24} In this case, there is nothing in the record establishing that the driver had mutual
use or joint access to Caulfield’s purse. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record indicating
that the officer had a reason to believe that the driver had authority to consent to the search of
Caulfield’s purse. Accordingly, there was no common authority over the purse, and the driver’s 11
consent to search the vehicle does not extend to Caulfield’s purse.
{¶ 25} For the foregoing reasons, consent does not validate the warrantless search of
Caulfield’s purse.
2. Search Incident to Arrest
{¶ 26} The search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement “derives from
interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest
situations.” Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338, 129 S.Ct.1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009), citing
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 230-234, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973);
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969).
{¶ 27} The United States Supreme Court defined the scope of a search incident to
arrest in Chimel and stated that an officer making a lawful custodial arrest may search “the
arrestee's person and the area ‘within his immediate control’-construing that phrase to mean the
area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel
at 763. Later, in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), the
United States Supreme Court explained that once a police officer "has made a lawful custodial
arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest,
search the passenger compartment of that automobile." (Footnote omitted.) Id. at 460. This
includes “the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment * * *." Id. at
461.
{¶ 28} The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gant revisited Belton, and
narrowed the scope of a lawful search incident to arrest. Gant held that “[p]olice may search a 12
vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the
passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains
evidence of the offense of arrest.” Id. at 351.
{¶ 29} In People v. Frias, 393 Ill.App.3d 331, 912 N.E.2d 1236 (2009), a driver was
stopped for speeding, and the officer on duty discovered that the driver had a suspended license
and an outstanding arrest warrant. Id. at 333. The officer arrested the driver and placed him in
the back of the squad car. Id. The officer then gestured for the passenger to exit the vehicle.
Id. at 333-334. As the passenger exited the vehicle, she moved her purse from her lap to her
shoulder. Id. The officer claimed that the passenger placed the purse on the trunk, and that the
officer searched the purse after finding nothing in the car's passenger compartment. Id. at 334.
The passenger did not consent to the search. Id. Based on the standard established in Gant, the
court in Frias held that “the searches conducted in this case purportedly as incident to defendant's
arrest were improper for violating the [F]ourth [A]mendment.” Id. at 336-337.
{¶ 30} We applied Gant the same way in State v. Gilbert, 184 Ohio App.3d 642,
2009-Ohio-5528, 921 N.E.2d 1126 (2d Dist.). In Gilbert, the defendant was a passenger in a
vehicle stopped for a traffic violation. Id. at ¶ 5. The officer on duty discovered that the driver
had a suspended license and arrested her. Id. Another passenger in the vehicle had an
outstanding warrant for robbery, and was arrested as well. Id. The defendant did not have any
outstanding warrants, and was removed from the vehicle so that the officers could conduct a
search of the vehicle incident to the arrests. Id. at ¶ 6. During the search, the officers found
marijuana seeds in the console. Id. at ¶ 7. After conducting a canine search, and searching the
defendant’s person for illegal substances, the officer found marijuana and crack cocaine in the 13
defendant’s shoes. Id at ¶ 9. Under the standard established in Gant, we held that the police
were not justified in conducting a warrantless search of the vehicle in which the defendant was a
passenger because:
[A]t the time of the search, no occupant had access to, or was within reaching
distance of, the vehicle’s passenger compartment. There is also no indication
that the search was initiated to discover evidence relevant either to the crime that
had been committed by the driver or the crime for which there was an outstanding
warrant to arrest the front-seat passenger. The driver of the car had been arrested
for driving under suspension, and the car would have contained no evidence
relevant to that crime. A passenger in the front seat had also been arrested on an
outstanding warrant for robbery, but there is no indication that the officers were
searching for evidence relevant to that crime or that evidence was likely to be
present relevant to that crime, which would have occurred sometime in the past,
since a warrant had been issued. Id. at ¶ 33.
{¶ 31} The present case is similar to Frias and Gilbert. Here, the driver was stopped
for a minor traffic violation, and was subsequently arrested due to an outstanding warrant and for
driving under suspension. The driver had no access to the passenger compartment during the
search of the vehicle because he was arrested and placed in the back of Deputy Tyree’s cruiser.
Caulfield also did not have access to the passenger compartment, as she was ordered to stand at
the front of the vehicle.
{¶ 32} Other than the traffic violation, there was no criminal activity observed, and there
was no contraband discovered prior to the search of the vehicle. Deputy Wright indicated that 14
the warrant for the driver listed drug and weapon indicators. The trial court did not accept this
testimony because Tyree, the officer who discovered the warrant, did not mention any such
indicators.
{¶ 33} The court measures reasonableness of an officer’s actions by reviewing the
“totality of the circumstances.” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d
347 (1996); State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 179, 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988). In this case, the
totality of the circumstances would not cause an officer to reasonably believe that the vehicle
contained evidence of criminal activity.
{¶ 34} For the foregoing reasons, the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant
requirement does not apply to the vehicle in this case, and cannot be used to justify the search of
{¶ 35} Even if the search incident to arrest exception had applied, the search of
Caulfield’s purse would still be unlawful, since the trial court found that the officer ordered
Caulfield to leave her purse in the vehicle without having probable cause to believe that there
was contraband in the vehicle. Courts in other jurisdictions have held that an officer, without
probable cause to believe there is contraband in a vehicle, violates a passenger’s Fourth
Amendment rights when the officer orders the passenger to leave her purse in the vehicle, and
then subsequently searches the purse along with the vehicle. See State v. Boyd, 275 Kan. 271,
282, 64 P.3d 419 (2003); State v. Newsom, 132 Idaho 698, 700, 979 P.2d 100 (1998); State v.
Tognotti, 2003 ND 99, 663 N.W.2d 642, ¶ 21. In other words, “ ‘the police cannot create a
right to search a container by placing it within the passenger compartment of a car or by ordering
someone else to place it there for them.’ ” Tognotti at ¶ 19, quoting State v. Holland, 135 Idaho 15
159, 163, 15 P.3d 1167 (2000).
{¶ 36} In Boyd, a passenger did not consent to the search of her purse and was ordered
to leave her purse in the vehicle during a search of the vehicle based on the driver’s consent.
Boyd at 272-273. At the time the officer ordered the passenger to leave her purse in the vehicle,
he did not have probable cause to believe that the vehicle or the purse contained contraband. Id.
at 283. Upon searching the vehicle, the officer discovered a crack pipe in the console of the
vehicle. Id. at 272. Given the discovery of the crack pipe, the officer proceeded to search the
passenger’s purse. Id. at 273.
{¶ 37} The Supreme Court of Kansas determined in Boyd “that where a passenger is
told by a police officer to get out of a lawfully stopped vehicle and in response to the officer’s
order to leave her purse in the vehicle, puts the purse down and exits the vehicle, a subsequent
search of the purse as part of a search of the vehicle violates the passenger’s Fourth Amendment
right against unreasonable search and seizure.” Id. at 283; See also Newsom, 132 Idaho at 700,
979 P.2d 100; Tognotti, 2003 ND 99, 663 N.W.2d 642, at ¶ 21.
{¶ 38} Like the officers in Boyd, Deputy Wright did not have probable cause to believe
there was contraband in the vehicle when he ordered Caulfield to leave her purse.
Consequently, even if the search incident to arrest exception applied in this case, per Boyd, the
search of Caulfield’s purse would still have been unlawful.
3. Officer Safety
{¶ 39} The trial court found that the search of the purse cannot be justified based on
officer safety, as the totality of the circumstances indicate that the deputies had no reason to
believe that the driver or Caulfield had a weapon. The trial court noted that the deputies chose 16
not to pat Caulfield down, despite the fact that she was wearing a large, winter coat that could
easily conceal a weapon, and found it unlikely that the Deputy would be concerned with a
weapon in Caulfield’s purse, but would not be concerned with weapons in her coat.
{¶ 40} While Caulfield was not illegally detained, the search of her purse was unlawful.
Because the warrantless search of Caulfield’s purse does not fall under any of the relevant,
recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, the search and seizure of Caulfield’s purse
was unreasonable and in violation of Caulfield’s Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, all of
the evidence obtained as a result of the search is subject to suppression under the fruit of the
poisonous tree doctrine. State v. McLemore, 197 Ohio App.3d 726, 2012-Ohio-521, 968 N.E.2d
612, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 41} The State’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 42} Having overruled the State’s sole assignment of error, we hereby affirm the trial
court’s decision granting Michelle Caulfield’s motion to suppress evidence.
FAIN, P.J. and DONOVAN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck R. Lynn Nothstine Victor A. Hodge Hon. John P. Petzold (sitting for Judge Steven K. Dankof)