[Cite as State v. Drummer, 2025-Ohio-4710.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 2024CA0099-M
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE JAWAAN A. DRUMMER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 2023CR0877
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: October 14, 2025
STEVENSON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jawaan Drummer, appeals from the judgment of the Medina
County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In November 2023 just after 1:20 a.m., Officer Seth Petit stopped a vehicle that was
traveling over 100 m.p.h. The vehicle had four occupants: the driver, two backseat passengers,
and Mr. Drummer, the front seat passenger. When Officer Petit spoke with the driver, he smelled
the odor of raw marijuana coming from the vehicle. He asked the driver how much marijuana he
had in the vehicle. The driver responded, “I don’t have any,” while emphasizing the “I” in his
statement. His answer caused Officer Petit to believe it was one of the passengers who had
marijuana. He decided to search the vehicle and contacted the Ohio State Highway Patrol for
assistance. 2
{¶3} Sergeant John Nemastil responded to Officer Petit’s request for assistance. The
sergeant approached the vehicle to speak with Mr. Drummer. As he did so, he also detected the
odor of raw marijuana. Before having Mr. Drummer exit the vehicle, Sergeant Nemastil asked
him whether there were any weapons in the vehicle or on his person. Mr. Drummer admitted there
was a gun in a bookbag at his feet. The police found a loaded .40 caliber handgun inside the
bookbag. They also found raw marijuana and edibles inside the center console of the vehicle and
marijuana in a second bookbag in the backseat.
{¶4} A grand jury indicted Mr. Drummer on one count of improperly handling firearms
in a motor vehicle and one count of carrying a concealed weapon. Each of his counts included a
forfeiture specification for the .40 caliber handgun. Mr. Drummer moved to suppress evidence,
challenging the length of the stop and the legality of the search the police conducted. Following a
suppression hearing, the trial court denied his motion.
{¶5} Mr. Drummer withdrew his initial plea and entered a plea of no contest. The matter
then proceeded to sentencing. The trial court imposed a total sentence of 18 months of community
control. It also ordered the forfeiture of the .40 caliber handgun.
{¶6} Mr. Drummer now appeals from his convictions, assigning two errors for review.
For ease of analysis, we consolidate his assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING OF FACTS WAS IMPROPER THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE SUSPICION TO EXTEND THE TRAFFIC STOP.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING OF FACTS WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE. 3
{¶7} In his first and second assignments of error, Mr. Drummer argues the trial court
erred when it denied his motion to suppress. According to Mr. Drummer, the police lacked
reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop that occurred and lacked probable cause to conduct
a vehicle search. For the following reasons, we reject his arguments.
{¶8} “The review of a motion to suppress evidence is a mixed question of law and fact.”
State v. Diaw, 2025-Ohio-2323, ¶ 8. “When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court
assumes the role of trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve factual questions
and evaluate the credibility of witnesses.” State v. Burnside, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8, citing State v.
Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366 (1992). “An appellate court reviewing a motion to suppress accepts
the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence and reviews
its legal conclusions de novo.” Diaw at ¶ 8, citing Burnside at ¶ 8.
{¶9} “It is well-established that a police officer who observes a traffic violation
possesses reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.” State v. Jackson, 2015-Ohio-
2473, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). In general, “[a]n investigative stop may last no longer than necessary to
accomplish the initial goal of the stop.” State v. Rackow, 2008-Ohio-507, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.). If,
however, during the investigatory stop “the officer discovers additional facts from which it is
reasonable to infer additional criminal activity[,] the officer is permitted to lengthen the duration
of the stop to investigate such suspicions.” State v. Williams, 2010-Ohio-3667, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.).
Accord State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 241 (1997). The question is whether, under the
totality of the circumstances, the officer possessed reasonable suspicion to extend the detention.
See State v. Ross, 2012-Ohio-6111, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.).
{¶10} The trial court found that Officer Petit conducted a constitutionally valid traffic stop
based on speeding. It also found that he and Sergeant Nemastil conducted a valid search of the 4
vehicle and its contents based on (1) the odor of raw marijuana, and (2) the statement the driver
made to Officer Petit when questioned about marijuana. The court found that both Officer Petit
and Sergeant Nemastil offered credible testimony. It concluded that the officers had probable
cause to extend the traffic stop and search the vehicle and the bookbags inside it. Thus, the court
denied Mr. Drummer’s motion to suppress.
{¶11} Mr. Drummer argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress.
He offers a single sentence in support of each of his assignments of error. He argues the court
erred when it found there was probable cause to extend the traffic stop because “[t]he reason for
the stop was over and the traffic stop was unconstitutionally prolonged.” He argues the court erred
when it found that Officer Petit was justified in searching the vehicle because “[t]here was no
probable cause to search the vehicle.” Mr. Drummer has not offered any analysis in support of
either of his assignments of error.
{¶12} “An appellant bears the burden of formulating an argument on appeal and
supporting that argument with citations to the record and to legal authority.” State v. Briggs, 2025-
Ohio-1966, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.), quoting Robinson v. Bishop, 2024-Ohio-4828, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). Thus,
it is not the duty of this Court to construct and address an argument on an appellant’s behalf. See
App.R. 16(A)(7); State v. Baskerville, 2017-Ohio-4050, ¶ 52 (9th Dist.). We have recognized that
an appellant cannot satisfy his burden on appeal by “‘merely setting forth conclusory
statements[.]’” State v. Marshall, 2025-Ohio-2283, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.), quoting Pietrangelo v. Lorain
Cty. Pr. & Pub. Co., 2017-Ohio-8783, ¶ 23 (9th Dist.), quoting In re B.P., 2015-Ohio-48, ¶ 10 (9th
Dist.).
{¶13} Upon review, Mr. Drummer has not satisfied his burden on appeal. He has not
constructed an argument that is supported with citations to the record and legal authority. See 5
Briggs at ¶ 8, quoting Robinson at ¶ 15. He has only offered a conclusory statement in support of
each of his assignments of error. This Court will not conduct an analysis on his behalf. See App.R.
16(A)(7); Baskerville at ¶ 52. For that reason, his assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶14} Mr. Drummer’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Drummer, 2025-Ohio-4710.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 2024CA0099-M
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE JAWAAN A. DRUMMER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 2023CR0877
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: October 14, 2025
STEVENSON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Jawaan Drummer, appeals from the judgment of the Medina
County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{¶2} In November 2023 just after 1:20 a.m., Officer Seth Petit stopped a vehicle that was
traveling over 100 m.p.h. The vehicle had four occupants: the driver, two backseat passengers,
and Mr. Drummer, the front seat passenger. When Officer Petit spoke with the driver, he smelled
the odor of raw marijuana coming from the vehicle. He asked the driver how much marijuana he
had in the vehicle. The driver responded, “I don’t have any,” while emphasizing the “I” in his
statement. His answer caused Officer Petit to believe it was one of the passengers who had
marijuana. He decided to search the vehicle and contacted the Ohio State Highway Patrol for
assistance. 2
{¶3} Sergeant John Nemastil responded to Officer Petit’s request for assistance. The
sergeant approached the vehicle to speak with Mr. Drummer. As he did so, he also detected the
odor of raw marijuana. Before having Mr. Drummer exit the vehicle, Sergeant Nemastil asked
him whether there were any weapons in the vehicle or on his person. Mr. Drummer admitted there
was a gun in a bookbag at his feet. The police found a loaded .40 caliber handgun inside the
bookbag. They also found raw marijuana and edibles inside the center console of the vehicle and
marijuana in a second bookbag in the backseat.
{¶4} A grand jury indicted Mr. Drummer on one count of improperly handling firearms
in a motor vehicle and one count of carrying a concealed weapon. Each of his counts included a
forfeiture specification for the .40 caliber handgun. Mr. Drummer moved to suppress evidence,
challenging the length of the stop and the legality of the search the police conducted. Following a
suppression hearing, the trial court denied his motion.
{¶5} Mr. Drummer withdrew his initial plea and entered a plea of no contest. The matter
then proceeded to sentencing. The trial court imposed a total sentence of 18 months of community
control. It also ordered the forfeiture of the .40 caliber handgun.
{¶6} Mr. Drummer now appeals from his convictions, assigning two errors for review.
For ease of analysis, we consolidate his assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING OF FACTS WAS IMPROPER THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE SUSPICION TO EXTEND THE TRAFFIC STOP.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT’S FINDING OF FACTS WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE. 3
{¶7} In his first and second assignments of error, Mr. Drummer argues the trial court
erred when it denied his motion to suppress. According to Mr. Drummer, the police lacked
reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop that occurred and lacked probable cause to conduct
a vehicle search. For the following reasons, we reject his arguments.
{¶8} “The review of a motion to suppress evidence is a mixed question of law and fact.”
State v. Diaw, 2025-Ohio-2323, ¶ 8. “When considering a motion to suppress, the trial court
assumes the role of trier of fact and is therefore in the best position to resolve factual questions
and evaluate the credibility of witnesses.” State v. Burnside, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8, citing State v.
Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357, 366 (1992). “An appellate court reviewing a motion to suppress accepts
the trial court’s findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence and reviews
its legal conclusions de novo.” Diaw at ¶ 8, citing Burnside at ¶ 8.
{¶9} “It is well-established that a police officer who observes a traffic violation
possesses reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.” State v. Jackson, 2015-Ohio-
2473, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). In general, “[a]n investigative stop may last no longer than necessary to
accomplish the initial goal of the stop.” State v. Rackow, 2008-Ohio-507, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.). If,
however, during the investigatory stop “the officer discovers additional facts from which it is
reasonable to infer additional criminal activity[,] the officer is permitted to lengthen the duration
of the stop to investigate such suspicions.” State v. Williams, 2010-Ohio-3667, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.).
Accord State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234, 241 (1997). The question is whether, under the
totality of the circumstances, the officer possessed reasonable suspicion to extend the detention.
See State v. Ross, 2012-Ohio-6111, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.).
{¶10} The trial court found that Officer Petit conducted a constitutionally valid traffic stop
based on speeding. It also found that he and Sergeant Nemastil conducted a valid search of the 4
vehicle and its contents based on (1) the odor of raw marijuana, and (2) the statement the driver
made to Officer Petit when questioned about marijuana. The court found that both Officer Petit
and Sergeant Nemastil offered credible testimony. It concluded that the officers had probable
cause to extend the traffic stop and search the vehicle and the bookbags inside it. Thus, the court
denied Mr. Drummer’s motion to suppress.
{¶11} Mr. Drummer argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress.
He offers a single sentence in support of each of his assignments of error. He argues the court
erred when it found there was probable cause to extend the traffic stop because “[t]he reason for
the stop was over and the traffic stop was unconstitutionally prolonged.” He argues the court erred
when it found that Officer Petit was justified in searching the vehicle because “[t]here was no
probable cause to search the vehicle.” Mr. Drummer has not offered any analysis in support of
either of his assignments of error.
{¶12} “An appellant bears the burden of formulating an argument on appeal and
supporting that argument with citations to the record and to legal authority.” State v. Briggs, 2025-
Ohio-1966, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.), quoting Robinson v. Bishop, 2024-Ohio-4828, ¶ 15 (9th Dist.). Thus,
it is not the duty of this Court to construct and address an argument on an appellant’s behalf. See
App.R. 16(A)(7); State v. Baskerville, 2017-Ohio-4050, ¶ 52 (9th Dist.). We have recognized that
an appellant cannot satisfy his burden on appeal by “‘merely setting forth conclusory
statements[.]’” State v. Marshall, 2025-Ohio-2283, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.), quoting Pietrangelo v. Lorain
Cty. Pr. & Pub. Co., 2017-Ohio-8783, ¶ 23 (9th Dist.), quoting In re B.P., 2015-Ohio-48, ¶ 10 (9th
Dist.).
{¶13} Upon review, Mr. Drummer has not satisfied his burden on appeal. He has not
constructed an argument that is supported with citations to the record and legal authority. See 5
Briggs at ¶ 8, quoting Robinson at ¶ 15. He has only offered a conclusory statement in support of
each of his assignments of error. This Court will not conduct an analysis on his behalf. See App.R.
16(A)(7); Baskerville at ¶ 52. For that reason, his assignments of error are overruled.
III.
{¶14} Mr. Drummer’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Medina
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Medina, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of
this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period
for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to
mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the
docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
SCOT STEVENSON FOR THE COURT 6
CARR, J. HENSAL, J. CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
WESLEY A. JOHNSTON, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
S. FORREST THOMPSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and STEFANIE H. ZARANEC, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.