State v. Humphrey

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Humphrey

590 N.E.2d 1387, 70 Ohio App. 3d 336, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 4858

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 19, 1990

DocketNo. 59658.

StatusPublished

This text of 590 N.E.2d 1387 (State v. Humphrey) 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. Humphrey, 590 N.E.2d 1387, 70 Ohio App. 3d 336, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 4858 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled. “The propriety of an investigative stop by a police officer must be viewed in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 524 N.E.2d 489, paragraph one of the syllabus, certiorari denied (1988), 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 264, 102 L.Ed.2d 252. Although probable cause to arrest is not required for a brief, investigative stop, Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879-1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 904-905, the detention must be justified by specific and articulable facts indicating that the detention was reasonable. Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1401, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 673-674; State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59, 61, 11 OBR 250, 251-252, 463 N.E.2d 1237, 1239, certiorari denied (1984), 469 U.S. 856, 105 S.Ct. 182, 83 L.Ed.2d 116. The only circumstance the arresting officer could specify to justify his stop was a punched-out hood lock on a 1969 model automobile which was otherwise in bad condition. Since a missing lock, without more, does not justify appellee’s detention, the trial court properly suppressed evidence obtained in the subsequent search.

Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

John Y. 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.

Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled. “The propriety of an investigative stop by a police officer must be viewed in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances.” State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 524 N.E.2d 489, paragraph one of the syllabus, certiorari denied (1988), 488 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 264, 102 L.Ed.2d 252. Although probable cause to arrest is not required for a brief, investigative stop, Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879-1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 904-905, the detention must be justified by specific and articulable facts indicating that the detention was reasonable. Delaware v. Prouse (1979), 440 U.S. 648, 663, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1401, 59 L.Ed.2d 660, 673-674; State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59, 61, 11 OBR 250, 251-252, 463 N.E.2d 1237, 1239, certiorari denied (1984), 469 U.S. 856, 105 S.Ct. 182, 83 L.Ed.2d 116. The only circumstance the arresting officer could specify to justify his stop was a punched-out hood lock on a 1969 model automobile which was otherwise in bad condition. Since a missing lock, without more, does not justify appellee’s detention, the trial court properly suppressed evidence obtained in the subsequent search.

Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 N.E.2d 1387, 70 Ohio App. 3d 336, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 4858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-humphrey-ohioctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack