State v. Hakeem

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Hakeem

572 N.E.2d 236, 61 Ohio App. 3d 187, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 4864

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 1990

DocketNo. 59663.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 572 N.E.2d 236 (State v. Hakeem) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hakeem, 572 N.E.2d 236, 61 Ohio App. 3d 187, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 4864 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25, the records from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. This case is a *189 timely appeal from the trial court’s granting of a motion to suppress physical evidence.

The police officer’s initial investigative stop of appellee’s car based on a police radio broadcast of a robbery suspect was proper under Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, since both the robbery suspect and appellee, Jameel Hakeem, were observed to be wearing a red-hooded sweatshirt. However, we agree with the trial court that the officer’s reasonable suspicion that appellee was involved in criminal activity dissipated when appellee exited his vehicle and, being 5'6" tall, did not resemble the 6'2" tall robbery suspect. See id. Once it was determined that appellee was not a suspect, the officers had no lawful right to conduct a warrantless search of appellee’s vehicle. See id.

While the officer testified the suspected cocaine was observed in plain view, the appellee’s testimony indicates the suspected cocaine, pager and car phone were only discovered after the police officers opened the car door and had searched the vehicle for several minutes. Thus, competent credible evidence exists to support a finding that the “plain view” exception does not apply here. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 8 O.O.3d 261, 376 N.E.2d 578; State v. Williams (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 82, 9 O.O.3d 81, 377 N.E.2d 1013. Therefore, we find the trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to suppress evidence.

Assignments of Error I and II are overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

John V. Corrigan, P.J., Nahra and Francis E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 25, the records from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. This case is a *189 timely appeal from the trial court’s granting of a motion to suppress physical evidence.

The police officer’s initial investigative stop of appellee’s car based on a police radio broadcast of a robbery suspect was proper under Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, since both the robbery suspect and appellee, Jameel Hakeem, were observed to be wearing a red-hooded sweatshirt. However, we agree with the trial court that the officer’s reasonable suspicion that appellee was involved in criminal activity dissipated when appellee exited his vehicle and, being 5'6" tall, did not resemble the 6'2" tall robbery suspect. See id. Once it was determined that appellee was not a suspect, the officers had no lawful right to conduct a warrantless search of appellee’s vehicle. See id.

While the officer testified the suspected cocaine was observed in plain view, the appellee’s testimony indicates the suspected cocaine, pager and car phone were only discovered after the police officers opened the car door and had searched the vehicle for several minutes. Thus, competent credible evidence exists to support a finding that the “plain view” exception does not apply here. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 8 O.O.3d 261, 376 N.E.2d 578; State v. Williams (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 82, 9 O.O.3d 81, 377 N.E.2d 1013. Therefore, we find the trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to suppress evidence.

Assignments of Error I and II are overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

John V. Corrigan, P.J., Nahra and Francis E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 N.E.2d 236, 61 Ohio App. 3d 187, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 4864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hakeem-ohioctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack