[Cite as State v. Price, 2026-Ohio-2512.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-25-00181
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202302141 v.
Michael Price DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 30, 2026
***** Julia R. Bates, Prosecuting Attorney, and Randy L. Meyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for appellee.
Dan M. Weiss, for appellant. *****
DUHART, J.
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant, Michael Price, appeals from judgment
entries of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, the trial
court’s judgments are affirmed. Statement of the Case and the Facts
{¶ 2} This appeal is a consolidation of two underlying criminal cases – case Nos.
CR23-02141 and CR24-02610 – in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. Price’s
sole assignment of error and his legal arguments address only the trial court’s denial of
his motion to suppress in CR24-02610.
{¶ 3} CR23-02141. Case No. CR23-02141 arose from the theft of $1,164.00
worth of merchandise from a Lowe’s store on June 14, 2023. The Lucas County Grand
Jury indicted Price for theft, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(2). On May 28, 2024, Price entered a plea of guilty to the theft
charge. The trial court reserved its finding of guilt and entered Price into the intervention-
in-lieu program pursuant to R.C. 2951.041.
{¶ 4} On November 4, 2024, the trial court conducted a hearing regarding
violation of the intervention in lieu. Price admitted the violation. The trial court found
Price guilty of Count 1 in the indictment, theft, and continued sentencing until a later
date.
{¶ 5} Sentencing in both CR23-02141 and CR24-02610 occurred on June 30,
2025. The trial court sentenced Price to twelve months in prison in CR23-02141, with the
sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence in CR24-02610.
{¶ 6} Price filed his notice of appeal in CR23-02141 on August 5, 2025.
{¶ 7} CR24-02610. Case No. CR24-02610 arose out of an incident that occurred
on October 27, 2024, after the victim, A.S., met Price at Club Evolution and agreed to
drive him home. During the drive, A.S. stopped her vehicle because she realized she was
2. too intoxicated to drive. Price and A.S. exited the vehicle. Price then punched A.S. in the
face and drove off in A.S.’s vehicle, leaving her behind. Price did not have permission to
take the vehicle.
{¶ 8} A.S. telephoned the Toledo Police Department (“TPD”) from a nearby gas
station. TPD Detective James Tucker responded to the gas station, where he interviewed
A.S. A.S. told Tucker what had happened, but at the time she did not know Price’s name.
{¶ 9} Later that day, A.S. reached out to Tucker and shared with him Price’s
Facebook profile containing photos of Price. Tucker subsequently prepared a six-person
photo array that included Price, and A.S. picked Price’s photo out of the array. The array
did not include any photos from Price’s Facebook page.
{¶ 10} The above facts led to a November 7, 2024 indictment from the Lucas
County Grand Jury for the offenses of robbery, a felony of the second degree, in violation
of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) and (B) (Count 1); and grand theft of a motor vehicle, a felony of
the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(5) (Count 2).
{¶ 11} On March 26, 2025, Price filed a motion to suppress along with a
memorandum in support. Price’s argument was essentially that A.S.’s provision of
Price’s Facebook page to Tucker prior to the preparation of the photo array rendered the
array “unduly suggestive.”
{¶ 12} On April 3, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress.
At the hearing, the State presented testimony from Detective Tucker, who testified as to
3. the circumstances surrounding his preparation of the photo array.1 Tucker explained that
following his initial encounter with A.S. at the gas station on October 27, A.S. contacted
him a second time and shared with him certain additional information. Specifically, A.S.
told Tucker that a friend of hers who knew Price had provided A.S. with Price’s
Facebook profile and that, upon viewing the Facebook profile, A.S. realized that Price
was the individual who assaulted her. Tucker testified that A.S. gave him the name of the
Facebook profile and a description of the profile picture.
{¶ 13} Based upon this information, Tucker conducted his own Facebook search
and found a Facebook profile with the name Michael JT Price Sr. Next, he looked up
Michael Price in the NORIS system and found a photo that looked like the individual in
the Facebook profile picture. He then created a photo array containing a photo of the
individual whom he had matched with the name Michael Price and the relevant Facebook
picture. Tucker made clear that the photo of Price that was used in the array was not a
photo that was taken from Facebook; instead, it was a Lucas County booking photo of
Price.
{¶ 14} Tucker gave a detailed account of the features he was looking for when he
created the photo array with pictures from NORIS. He stated that he looked for black
males, aged 35 to 41, with long black hair, “like dreads,” and facial hair. He further stated
1 The State was prepared to have TPD Sergeant Babcock testify regarding his role as the blind administrator of the photo array. But because defense counsel narrowed the issue to preparation of the photo array, which did not include presentation of the array, the trial court dismissed Sergeant Babcock as a witness. 4. that he used photos that were taken within the date range of when Price was arrested in
order to keep the photo backgrounds and array member apparel consistent.
{¶ 15} At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial court requested that
the parties submit post-hearing briefs.
{¶ 16} On April 17, Price filed a memorandum in support of the motion to
suppress. In that brief, he argued that “[t]he actions of the complainant basically
amount[ed] to herself preparing the photo array,” that this was “highly and unduly
suggestive,” and that “the identification of Defendant should be suppressed.” On the
same date, the State filed a memorandum in opposition, arguing that the array was not
unduly suggestive.
{¶ 17} The trial court filed its decision and judgment entry denying the motion to
suppress on April 24, 2025. In that decision, the trial court expressly limited its review to
“whether the mere fact that A.S. provided the Facebook profile of an individual she
believed was her assailant would then make her later identification of Defendant in an
otherwise uncontested photo array unduly suggestive.” The trial court held:
The Court does not find that providing a Facebook profile, which included a photograph of the suspect, made her later identification of Defendant unduly suggestive. Det. Tucker utilized a picture other than the picture found on Facebook and that picture did not stand out against the other five individuals in the photo array.
{¶ 18} On June 9, 2025, Price entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the
indictment, grand theft of a motor vehicle, under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(5), a felony
of the fourth degree. As part of the negotiated plea agreement, the State agreed to
5. recommend at sentencing that the trial court enter a nolle prosequi as to Count 1 of the
indictment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Price, 2026-Ohio-2512.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-25-00181
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202302141 v.
Michael Price DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 30, 2026
***** Julia R. Bates, Prosecuting Attorney, and Randy L. Meyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for appellee.
Dan M. Weiss, for appellant. *****
DUHART, J.
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant, Michael Price, appeals from judgment
entries of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, the trial
court’s judgments are affirmed. Statement of the Case and the Facts
{¶ 2} This appeal is a consolidation of two underlying criminal cases – case Nos.
CR23-02141 and CR24-02610 – in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. Price’s
sole assignment of error and his legal arguments address only the trial court’s denial of
his motion to suppress in CR24-02610.
{¶ 3} CR23-02141. Case No. CR23-02141 arose from the theft of $1,164.00
worth of merchandise from a Lowe’s store on June 14, 2023. The Lucas County Grand
Jury indicted Price for theft, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C.
2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(2). On May 28, 2024, Price entered a plea of guilty to the theft
charge. The trial court reserved its finding of guilt and entered Price into the intervention-
in-lieu program pursuant to R.C. 2951.041.
{¶ 4} On November 4, 2024, the trial court conducted a hearing regarding
violation of the intervention in lieu. Price admitted the violation. The trial court found
Price guilty of Count 1 in the indictment, theft, and continued sentencing until a later
date.
{¶ 5} Sentencing in both CR23-02141 and CR24-02610 occurred on June 30,
2025. The trial court sentenced Price to twelve months in prison in CR23-02141, with the
sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence in CR24-02610.
{¶ 6} Price filed his notice of appeal in CR23-02141 on August 5, 2025.
{¶ 7} CR24-02610. Case No. CR24-02610 arose out of an incident that occurred
on October 27, 2024, after the victim, A.S., met Price at Club Evolution and agreed to
drive him home. During the drive, A.S. stopped her vehicle because she realized she was
2. too intoxicated to drive. Price and A.S. exited the vehicle. Price then punched A.S. in the
face and drove off in A.S.’s vehicle, leaving her behind. Price did not have permission to
take the vehicle.
{¶ 8} A.S. telephoned the Toledo Police Department (“TPD”) from a nearby gas
station. TPD Detective James Tucker responded to the gas station, where he interviewed
A.S. A.S. told Tucker what had happened, but at the time she did not know Price’s name.
{¶ 9} Later that day, A.S. reached out to Tucker and shared with him Price’s
Facebook profile containing photos of Price. Tucker subsequently prepared a six-person
photo array that included Price, and A.S. picked Price’s photo out of the array. The array
did not include any photos from Price’s Facebook page.
{¶ 10} The above facts led to a November 7, 2024 indictment from the Lucas
County Grand Jury for the offenses of robbery, a felony of the second degree, in violation
of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) and (B) (Count 1); and grand theft of a motor vehicle, a felony of
the fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(5) (Count 2).
{¶ 11} On March 26, 2025, Price filed a motion to suppress along with a
memorandum in support. Price’s argument was essentially that A.S.’s provision of
Price’s Facebook page to Tucker prior to the preparation of the photo array rendered the
array “unduly suggestive.”
{¶ 12} On April 3, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress.
At the hearing, the State presented testimony from Detective Tucker, who testified as to
3. the circumstances surrounding his preparation of the photo array.1 Tucker explained that
following his initial encounter with A.S. at the gas station on October 27, A.S. contacted
him a second time and shared with him certain additional information. Specifically, A.S.
told Tucker that a friend of hers who knew Price had provided A.S. with Price’s
Facebook profile and that, upon viewing the Facebook profile, A.S. realized that Price
was the individual who assaulted her. Tucker testified that A.S. gave him the name of the
Facebook profile and a description of the profile picture.
{¶ 13} Based upon this information, Tucker conducted his own Facebook search
and found a Facebook profile with the name Michael JT Price Sr. Next, he looked up
Michael Price in the NORIS system and found a photo that looked like the individual in
the Facebook profile picture. He then created a photo array containing a photo of the
individual whom he had matched with the name Michael Price and the relevant Facebook
picture. Tucker made clear that the photo of Price that was used in the array was not a
photo that was taken from Facebook; instead, it was a Lucas County booking photo of
Price.
{¶ 14} Tucker gave a detailed account of the features he was looking for when he
created the photo array with pictures from NORIS. He stated that he looked for black
males, aged 35 to 41, with long black hair, “like dreads,” and facial hair. He further stated
1 The State was prepared to have TPD Sergeant Babcock testify regarding his role as the blind administrator of the photo array. But because defense counsel narrowed the issue to preparation of the photo array, which did not include presentation of the array, the trial court dismissed Sergeant Babcock as a witness. 4. that he used photos that were taken within the date range of when Price was arrested in
order to keep the photo backgrounds and array member apparel consistent.
{¶ 15} At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial court requested that
the parties submit post-hearing briefs.
{¶ 16} On April 17, Price filed a memorandum in support of the motion to
suppress. In that brief, he argued that “[t]he actions of the complainant basically
amount[ed] to herself preparing the photo array,” that this was “highly and unduly
suggestive,” and that “the identification of Defendant should be suppressed.” On the
same date, the State filed a memorandum in opposition, arguing that the array was not
unduly suggestive.
{¶ 17} The trial court filed its decision and judgment entry denying the motion to
suppress on April 24, 2025. In that decision, the trial court expressly limited its review to
“whether the mere fact that A.S. provided the Facebook profile of an individual she
believed was her assailant would then make her later identification of Defendant in an
otherwise uncontested photo array unduly suggestive.” The trial court held:
The Court does not find that providing a Facebook profile, which included a photograph of the suspect, made her later identification of Defendant unduly suggestive. Det. Tucker utilized a picture other than the picture found on Facebook and that picture did not stand out against the other five individuals in the photo array.
{¶ 18} On June 9, 2025, Price entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the
indictment, grand theft of a motor vehicle, under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(5), a felony
of the fourth degree. As part of the negotiated plea agreement, the State agreed to
5. recommend at sentencing that the trial court enter a nolle prosequi as to Count 1 of the
indictment. The trial court accepted the plea and found Price guilty.
{¶ 19} The sentencing hearing took place on June 30, 2025, when the trial court
sentenced Price in both cases. In case No. CR24-02610, the trial court ordered a prison
sentence of 18 months, with the sentence to be served concurrently with the 12-month
sentence imposed in case No. CR24-02141.
{¶ 20} Price filed a notice of appeal in case No. CR24-02610 on August 5, 2025.
{¶ 21} On August 15, 2025, this court ordered consolidation of Price’s two
appeals -- designated L-25-00181 and L-25-00182, respectively -- into L-25-00181.
Assignment of Error
{¶ 22} On appeal, Price asserts the following assignment of error:
I. The trial court erred when it denied Appellant’s motion to suppress the photo array.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 23} Price argues in his sole assignment of error that the identification process in
this case was unduly suggestive “because the photo array was derived from the
foundation of photographs provided to the Detective by the victim.” He further argues
that “because of the significant involvement of the victim,” the identification was also not
reliable.
{¶ 24} In general, appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed
question of law and fact. State v. Graber, 2020-Ohio-5324, citing State v. Burnside,
6. 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8. As Price limits his challenge to legal conclusions, we will conduct
a de novo review of the trial court’s application of the law. See id.
{¶ 25} “Introducing as evidence the results of an unduly suggestive police
identification procedure may violate a defendant’s right to due process and require a trial
court to suppress that evidence.” State v. Chaney, 2023-Ohio-8, ¶ 24 (5th Dist.), citing
Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (1969). “Due process concerns arise, however, only
when…the identification procedure is arranged by law enforcement officials.” Chaney at
¶ 24, citing Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012). In addition, “‘[p]hoto array
evidence is suppressed only if the identification, or method of identification, is unduly
suggestive and unreliable.’” State v. Sherman, 2024-Ohio-5354, ¶ 163 (6th Dist.), quoting
State v. Gaines, 2010-Ohio-91, ¶ 15 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424,
438 (1992); and Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
{¶ 26} “Generally speaking, a photo array is not unduly suggestive if the other
photos depict people who appear with relatively similar age, features, skin tone, facial
hair, apparel, and photo background.” Id., citing State v. Williams, 2022-Ohio-2439, ¶ 33-
35 (6th Dist.) (citing cases). It is the defendant’s burden to establish that the identification
procedure was unduly suggestive. Id. “If the defendant meets that burden, the court must
consider if, under the totality of the circumstances, the identification is reliable, despite
its suggestive nature.” Id., citing State v. Heflin, 2011-Ohio-4134, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.).
{¶ 27} Factors to be considered in determining reliability include: “(1) the
witness’s opportunity to view the defendant, (2) the witness’s degree of attention, (3) the
accuracy of the witness’s prior description, if any, of the defendant, (4) the witness’s
7. certainty, and (5) the amount of time that elapsed between the offense and the
identification.” Id. at ¶ 165, citing Heflin at 17.
{¶ 28} Here, the evidence does not establish that the array -- which was said to
have included individuals of relatively similar age, skin tone, hair, apparel, and photo
background -- was unduly suggestive. And, in fact, Price states no complaint about the
array itself. Instead, Price asserts that the victim’s identification was somehow tainted by
the victim having first provided police with Price’s Facebook profile.
{¶ 29} Courts in this and other jurisdictions have consistently rejected similar
arguments by defendants in cases where victims identified the defendant by way of the
defendant’s Facebook profile prior to viewing a police photo lineup or single photo. See
State v. Williams, 2019-Ohio-5144, ¶ 5, 12 (6th Dist.) (photo lineup not suggestive where
victim had previously showed the detective a photograph from Facebook and stated he
believed the photograph showed the individuals who burglarized his home); Graber at ¶
5, 12 (use of a photo lineup after victims had uncovered the defendant’s identity via his
Facebook account was not unduly suggestive, inasmuch as police used the lineup merely
to verify the victims’ earlier identifications); In re D.C., 2019-Ohio-4860, ¶ 28 (1st Dist.)
(initial identification of the defendant by way of Facebook photos, which was not state
action, provided an independent basis for identification separate from the police-
administered one-photo procedure); see also State v. Henry, 2012-Ohio-5552, ¶ 51 (6th
Dist.) (that the victim was independently able to locate the defendant’s photo on
Facebook (which was not the photo that was used in the array) was not a factor that
would undermine the reliability of the photo array identification). In this case, we
8. likewise conclude that victim A.S.’s prior, independently made Facebook identification
did nothing to render the police photo array unduly suggestive. This conclusion ends our
analysis herein because “an identification must be both unduly suggestive and unreliable
to be suppressed.” See Sherman at ¶ 165, citing Heflin at ¶ 17. Accordingly, Price’s
single assignment of error is found not well-taken.
Conclusion
{¶ 30} The judgments of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE
Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE
Charles E. Sulek, J. CONCUR. JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
9.