[Cite as State v. Rogers, 2022-Ohio-4535.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-210666 TRIAL NO. B-2005302 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
VS. : O P I N I O N.
ROBERT ROGERS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 16, 2022
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Arenstein & Gallagher and William Gallagher, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
WINKLER, Judge.
{¶1} After entering no-contest pleas, defendant-appellant Robert Rogers
was convicted of carrying concealed weapons, improperly handing firearms in a motor
vehicle, and having weapons under disability. Before entering his pleas, Rogers moved
to suppress a loaded firearm that the police found in the glove box of his vehicle during
a search after a roadside stop that lasted over 11 minutes, claiming the police conduct
violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The trial court denied Rogers’s motion, and he challenges that decision in this appeal.
{¶2} We affirm the trial court’s judgment upon our determination that the
firearm was located during a Terry investigative stop for carrying a concealed weapon,
the scope and duration of which were reasonable under the totality of the
circumstances and, therefore, Rogers’s constitutional rights were not violated.
I. Trial Court Proceedings
{¶3} Rogers’s weapons charges arose from his encounter with several law
enforcement officers on October 9, 2020. The record demonstrates that members of
the Cincinnati Police Department’s Gun Crime Task Force (“Task Force”), comprised
of plain-clothed and uniformed officers, along with special agents from the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), were focused on a gathering of
approximately 40 people on Irving Street in what appeared to be a block party in the
area around the Colonial Village Apartments. As explained by Lieutenant David
Schofield and Officer Thomas Chiappone, the only witnesses at the suppression
hearing, the area was considered a “high crime area” and targeted by the Task Force
due to “unusually high numbers of violent crim[inal] activities, shootings, gun runs,
[and] shots fired.” Additionally, the Task Force had received “multiple requests from
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the community [in general], and from the neighborhood liaison unit that works closely
with the community in [the police district], to give that specific location attention.”
{¶4} Beginning at dusk, Lieutenant Schofield in plainclothes conducted
surveillance of the gathering using binoculars from a covert vehicle parked on the east
side of the street. Within minutes of his arrival on Irving Street, Lieutenant Schofield
observed “at least two people who were openly carrying firearms” at the gathering.
Thereafter, he saw Rogers “arrive in a dark-colored Lincoln MKZ,” eventually parking
on the opposite side of the street “approximately 60 yards away” with the Lincoln
“facing” towards the plainclothes officer.
{¶5} Next, Lieutenant Schofield saw Rogers exit from the driver’s side of the
vehicle and “step towards where the group was gathered,” “hesitate[] for a second,”
and “step[] back.” After Rogers pivoted back to the vehicle, Lieutenant Schofield saw
Rogers “[r]each[] into the passenger’s compartment of the vehicle, and then move[]
his right hand toward his abdominal area, and appear[] * * * to be placing an item in
his waistband area.”
{¶6} The driver’s side door obscured Lieutenant Schofield’s view of Rogers’s
waist area during those movements, but when Rogers closed the door and headed to
the gathering, Lieutenant Schofield saw a “suspicious bulge” in the front center
location of Rogers’s waist area.
{¶7} Suspecting that Rogers had unlawfully concealed an “unholstered”
firearm in his waistband, Lieutenant Schofield relayed this concern through the covert
radio channel to the other Task Force officers in the area. He also relayed his
observations with respect to the individuals he had seen openly carrying firearms.
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶8} While Rogers was at the gathering, Lieutenant Schofield continued
surveillance on him and did not see any action indicating that Rogers had discarded
the object in his waistband. After a few minutes, Rogers returned to his vehicle and
drove away. At least one individual seen openly carrying firearms left as well in a white
Chevy Impala. A Task Force officer in an unmarked police car followed the vehicles
until uniformed Task Force officers using stop sticks effectuated an investigative stop
of the vehicles based on the information from Lieutenant Schofield.
{¶9} Once Rogers stopped, Officer Chiappone, wearing a body camera,
approached Rogers’s vehicle with his gun drawn and instructed Rogers to show the
officers his hands. Rogers, who was surrounded by an ATF agent and several police
officers, complied with that request, and identified himself. When asked, Rogers
denied having a weapon and did not mention anything about a concealed-carry
permit. A search of Rogers’s information into a police data base revealed no warrants
or a concealed-carry permit.
{¶10} During the stop, Rogers told the officers he was “scared” and that he just
wanted to go home. Officer Chiappone told Rogers that they were concerned about
firearms in the area and that if Rogers did not have a firearm he could leave. When an
ATF agent asked Rogers if he had a firearm, Rogers replied that he had been in an
“area where a lot of stuff was going on” and it “gets crazy” so he left. In response to
Rogers’s request to go home, Officer Chiappone told Rogers three times that he could
go home if he would agree to voluntarily exit from the vehicle and consent to a check
for weapons on his person and the “immediate area” inside the vehicle. Rogers
repeatedly refused, again indicating that he was “scared” and “didn’t know what was
going on,” and pointing out to the officers that there were no firearms visible in his
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
vehicle. Officer Chiappone told Rogers that, if he did not give consent, then they would
“get into the car with a canine sniff,” and which way they proceeded “was up to
Rogers.” Rogers maintained his position.
{¶11} About eight-and-one-half minutes into the stop, when a canine officer
arrived, Officer Chiappone ordered Rogers out of the vehicle for the canine sniff. After
Rogers exited, Officer Chiappone placed him in handcuffs and patted him down as a
canine officer spoke to Rogers about the canine’s ability to alert on certain drugs.
Officer Chiappone found no weapon but continued his conversation with Rogers about
the firearm investigation. Around 11-and-one-half minutes into the stop, when Officer
Chiappone was called away to another investigation, the canine alerted on the outside
of the vehicle and an officer other than Officer Chiappone then searched the glove box
and found the firearm that resulted in the charges against Rogers. The officers did not
find any drugs inside the vehicle.
{¶12} Officer Chiappone testified that the circumstances warranted an
investigative stop and a protective search for weapons, and that his investigative
approach was tailored to “deescalate” the situation which involved a “very nervous”
individual suspected of having a firearm. Officer Chiappone’s body-worn camera
recording of the stop was admitted into evidence at the suppression hearing and
confirms that Rogers was “very nervous” during the stop.
{¶13} Rogers sought exclusion of the firearm on the ground that the stop of
his vehicle and the search of his glove box were conducted in violation of his rights
under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section
10 of the Ohio Constitution. The state at the suppression hearing did not offer
probable cause from the canine alert as the justification for the warrantless search.
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Instead, the state asserted that the stop and search were lawful because the Task Force
had reasonable suspicion to stop Rogers for illegally carrying a firearm and to perform
a protective search during that investigative stop.
{¶14} At the conclusion of the hearing, Rogers conceded that if the Task Force
officers had reasonable suspicion that he had concealed a firearm then, consistent with
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the Task Force officers
could have effectuated an investigative stop and performed a protective search for
weapons during a brief detention. He argued, however, that the officers knew they
lacked reasonable suspicion to believe he was armed and that was why they sought
consent and brought over a canine for a search, thereby engaging in an illegal “fishing
expedition.”
{¶15} The trial court did not question the witnesses’ credibility and adopted
historical facts that mirrored Lieutenant Schofield’s and Officer Chiappone’s
testimony. Concluding that the Task Force officers had reasonable suspicion to
perform a Terry investigative stop to determine whether Rogers was illegally armed,
the “temporary nature of the detention satisfied the ultimate test of reasonableness,”
and the protective sweep of the vehicle occurring during the “brief inquiry” was lawful,
the trial court denied the motion to suppress.
{¶16} Rogers now appeals, advancing three assignments of error all
challenging the denial of his motion to suppress.
II. Analysis
{¶17} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution secures the
right to be free from an unreasonable search or seizure and requires a warrant to be
particular and supported by probable cause. Accord Ohio Constitution, Article I, 6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Section 14. Stopping a vehicle and detaining its occupants is a “seizure” under the
relevant constitutional provisions. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99
S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). Thus, generally, police may not make random stops
of vehicles. See id. at 663.
{¶18} Here, the trial court determined the police recovered the firearm during
a stop and search authorized by Terry and its progeny. Under Terry, the police may
temporarily detain an individual for an investigation without violating the Fourth
Amendment when an officer has reasonable suspicion based on specific and
articulable facts that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. See Terry, 392
U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. Further, if the officer is “justified in
believing” that an individual may be “armed and presently dangerous,” the officer may
conduct a limited protective search of the individual for concealed weapons. Id. at 24,
cited in State v. Hairston, 156 Ohio St.3d 363, 2019-Ohio-1622, 126 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 9.
Generally, searches and seizures that extend what is permitted by Terry must be
supported by probable cause. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75
L.Ed.2d 229 (1983).
{¶19} The reasonableness of a vehicle stop is measured by the same standards
set forth for investigatory stops in Terry. See, e.g., Prouse at 663 (“[W]e hold that
except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable
suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that
either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law,
stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license
and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth
Amendment.”); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884, 95 S.Ct. 2574,
7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) (“For the same reasons that the Fourth Amendment forbids
stopping vehicles at random to inquire if they are carrying aliens who are illegally in
the country, it also forbids stopping or detaining persons for questioning about their
citizenship on less than a reasonable suspicion that they may be aliens.”); accord State
v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406, 2008-Ohio-4539, 894 N.E.2d 1204, ¶ 23.
{¶20} Further, the United States Supreme Court has held that during a lawful
roadside Terry stop, when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual
whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently
dangerous to the officer and or others, he may conduct a limited protective search of
the vehicle’s passenger compartment for concealed weapons. Michigan v. Long, 463
U.S. 1032, 1049-1050, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983), citing Terry at 21 and
27. The Ohio Supreme Court has also allowed limited protective searches of vehicles
during a roadside Terry stop. State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988),
paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶21} A protective search for weapons may occur at the end of a stop because
an officer may reasonably fear that a suspect in the officer’s control during the Terry
detention may use the weapon to injure the officer if permitted to reenter his vehicle
at the conclusion of the stop. See Long at 1051-1052; State v. Williamson, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 25479, 2014-Ohio-325, ¶ 26. (“The officers reasonably believed that,
for their safety, it was necessary to search the Bonneville to ascertain whether there
was a weapon that could be accessed by Williamson, if he were released, or by others
in the area.”).
{¶22} Under Terry’s framework, the investigative stop must be both justified
at its inception due to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and reasonably related
8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. Terry,
392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. Thus, a vehicle stop is limited in scope
and degree of intrusion by its purpose and may last no longer than reasonably
necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. See State v. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. 348,
354, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675,
105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985).
{¶23} Reasonable suspicion is an objective standard that requires more than
a hunch. The officers must have a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting
the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S.
411, 417-418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). But officers “need not rule out the
possibility of innocent conduct.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277, 122 S.Ct.
744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002), cited in State v. Wright, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-
210486, 2022-Ohio-2161, ¶ 16.
{¶24} Finally, reasonable suspicion must be considered under the totality of
the circumstances, considering all the information available to law enforcement
officials at the time. See Arvizu at 273. Officers are entitled to draw on their own
experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about
the presenting information. Id. “Pertinent circumstances include the officer’s own
direct observations, dispatch information, directions from other officers, and the
nature of the area and time of day during which the suspicious activity occurred.”
United States v. Campbell, 549 F.3d 364, 371 (6th Cir.2008).
{¶25} Evidence derived from a search or seizure that violates the Fourth
Amendment is subject to exclusion at trial. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81
S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).
9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶26} Appellate review of a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of
law and fact. See State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152, 2003-Ohio-5372, 797 N.E.2d
71, ¶ 8, cited in Wright at ¶ 11. We must accept the trial court’s findings of fact as true
if competent, credible evidence supports them. Id. Then we must independently
determine whether the historical facts satisfy the legal standard, id., mindful to “give
due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law
enforcement officers.” Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134
L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).
{¶27} Rogers maintains that Lieutenant Schofield’s observations were not
sufficient to establish the necessary reasonable suspicion to justify an investigative
stop of his vehicle. Additionally, Rogers argues that even if the stop was justified at its
inception, the officers impermissibly extended his detention for a canine sniff to obtain
probable cause to search his vehicle.
A. Reasonable Suspicion to Stop
{¶28} In this case, considering the totality of the circumstances, we agree with
the trial court that the initial stop fell within the parameters of a lawful Terry stop
based on a suspicion of criminal activity. The cumulative observations of Lieutenant
Schofield constituted an objectively reasonable basis for the fellow Task Force officers
to temporarily detain Rogers to determine if criminal activity was afoot, i.e., whether
he had brought a concealed firearm to the street gathering. See In re M.P., 1st Dist.
Hamilton Nos. C-130663 and C-130741, 2014-Ohio-2846, ¶ 10 (Under the “fellow
officer’s rule,” a police officer’s reasonable, articulable suspicion can be transferred to
another officer.).
10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶29} Initially, Lieutenant Schofield explained that the area in which the
surveillance occurred was a high-crime area, relaying with detail that the area was
currently plagued by firearm crimes. He further testified that he had observed at least
two people openly carrying firearms at the gathering, and he described the time of day
as dusk, which is a time of day when weapons could easily be hidden. He also asserted
that he had about 15 years of experience as a police officer and numerous years in the
surveillance of drug and weapon activity, experience that included extensive training
in firearm use and identification as well has “hundreds” of firearm investigations,
seizures, and arrests. Relatedly, Lieutenant Schofield testified to his knowledge of how
firearms are carried and concealed by individuals. Finally, he testified to his
observation that Rogers pivoted from his path to the gathering where others were
openly carrying firearms, reached back into his vehicle to grab something from the
passenger compartment, put something in his waistband, and then appeared with a
“suspicious bulge” in the center of his waistband.
{¶30} At the suppression hearing, Lieutenant Schofield physically
demonstrated the location of the bulge and explained that the location was where one
would likely stash a firearm because it provided the necessary stability to secure a
firearm. He additionally explained that it was not a likely place to stash other items
such as a cellphone. Finally, Lieutenant Schofield testified that he continued to surveil
Rogers and that at no point before leaving did Rogers appear to discard what
Lieutenant Schofield believed was a firearm.
{¶31} Rogers acknowledges that a bulge in a suspect’s clothing is a fact that
can lead to reasonable suspicion to support an investigative stop for weapons when an
officer observes additional facts. See Golden v. United States, 248 A.3d 925, 942
11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
(D.C.Cir.2021), citing United States v. Richmond, 924 F.3d 404, 411-412 (7th
Cir.2019); United States v. Aitoro, 446 F.3d 246, 249, 252-254 (1st Cir.2006); State
v. Henson, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210244, 2022-Ohio-1571, ¶ 31 (Noting the officers
did not observe a bulge in suspect’s clothing that would have been indicative of him
concealing a weapon.); In re J.C., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-180478 and C-180479,
2019-Ohio-4815, ¶ 22 (Noting the absence of facts such as an observed “bulge” in pants
when determining that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate
for carrying a concealed weapon.); see also Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 112,
98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d (1977), (“The bulge in the jacket permitted the officer to
conclude that Mimms was armed and thus posed a serious and present danger to the
safety of the officer. In these circumstances, any man of ‘reasonable caution’ would
likely have conducted the ‘pat-down.’ ”), cited in United States v. Roggeman, 279 F.3d
573, 580 (8th Cir.2002).
{¶32} Rogers argues, however, that it was not reasonable for Lieutenant
Schofield to infer the bulge was a firearm without any distinctive behavior present in
other cases. See State v. Phillips, 155 Ohio App.3d 149, 2003-Ohio-5742, 799 N.E.2d
653, ¶ 32 (2d Dist.). In Phillips, the court held that “[b]ulging pockets don’t connote
crime or weapons when they have no specific nexus to criminal activity.” Like in
Phillips, Rogers contends the bulge observed by Lieutenant Schofield was more likely
something innocent, as Rogers was simply observed attending a block party with
families.
{¶33} The facts in this case are distinguishable from Phillips, where the bulge
was in a pocket. Here, the bulge was observed in the front center portion of Rogers’s
waistband. Officer Schofield relayed that in his experience the front central area of
12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the waistband, effective in keeping an unholstered firearm concealed but steady, is the
likely area to conceal an unholstered firearm but not a cellphone or radio.
{¶34} Importantly, Lieutenant Schofield linked the suspicious bulge to the
other observed facts that created the totality of circumstances upon which the
propriety of the stop must be considered. This included that he had seen two
individuals openly carrying weapons at the gathering. Further, he saw Rogers obtain
the object creating the bulge by pivoting away from the direction of the party and
reaching into the passenger side of his vehicle from the driver’s side door. And
Rogers’s actions occurred in an area notorious at that time for firearm crimes.
{¶35} Rogers also argues the court should not accord much weight to the fact
that the investigation took place in a high-crime area. The Ohio Supreme Court,
however, recently reaffirmed that “[a]n officer’s experience with criminal activity in an
area and an area’s reputation for criminal activity are factors” that are relevant to the
reasonable-suspicion analysis. See Hairston, 156 Ohio St.3d 363, 2019-Ohio-1622,
126 N.E.3d 1132, at ¶ 12. The law requires consideration of these “contextual factors.”
Id. at ¶ 15. Ultimately, we conclude Rogers’s assertion that Officer Schofield needed
more information to conclude that the bulge was a firearm is not supported by the case
law.
{¶36} Rogers additionally argues that even if the officers had reasonable
suspicion that he was armed, there was no evidence that he was illegally armed. This
argument relates to the possibility that Rogers had a concealed-carry permit at the
time of the stop that would have legalized his behavior if the firearm he was suspected
of carrying was a handgun. Rogers did not raise this argument below and instead
conceded that Terry would govern if the officers’ suspicion that he had concealed a
13 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
firearm was reasonable. Because Rogers’s current argument is contrary to Rogers’s
position in the trial court, it cannot be raised now. See State v. Curry, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-210274, 2022-Ohio-627, ¶ 15. Thus, we refrain from addressing this
argument with respect to Rogers’s challenge to the propriety of the stop.
{¶37} In summary, we conclude that, considering the totality of the
circumstances, the Task Force officers possessed reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity related to the illegal possession of a firearm to initiate the investigative stop.
B. Duration of the Stop
{¶38} Rogers argues also that the Task Force officers unlawfully prolonged the
investigative stop for the sole purpose of creating probable cause to search his vehicle
through a canine sniff. A seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth
Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes on interests protected
by the Constitution. Rodriguez, 575 U.S. 348, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492; United
States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 124, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984); Illinois v.
Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 407, 125 S.Ct. 834, 160 L.Ed.2d 842 (2005). Rogers’s
argument requires an inquiry that focuses on the scope of the stop, including the
duration of the detention.
{¶39} With respect to investigative stops in general, the scope must be
reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the stop in first place, and “the
investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably
available to dispel the officer’s suspicion in a short period of time.” Royer, 460 U.S at
500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229.
{¶40} In determining the reasonable duration of stop, we must examine
“whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to 14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain
the defendant.” Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 686, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605; Rodriguez
at 354. However, “[t]he question is not simply whether some other alternative was
available, but whether the police acted unreasonably in failing to recognize or to
pursue it.” Sharpe at 687. This inquiry affords deference to methods selected by
trained officers in the field, prohibiting “unrealistic second guessing.” See id. at 686.
{¶41} Rogers relies primarily on United States v. Rodriguez in support of his
argument that the duration of the stop was unreasonable, and therefore, the firearm
recovered during that illegal detention should be suppressed. The Rodriguez Court
addressed whether the police may delay the duration of an investigative stop for a
traffic violation, even for just a small amount of time, to wait for a drug sniffing canine,
absent any articulable suspicion to believe that there are drugs in the vehicle. The
Court concluded that unless police have “reasonable suspicion” to investigate for
drugs, it is an unconstitutional seizure for them to extend a legal traffic stop for the
sole purpose of conducting a canine sniff. See Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at 358, 135 S.Ct.
1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492. Accord State v. Wood, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2021CA00082,
2022-Ohio-2548, and State v. Neyhard, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2021-A-0005, 2022-
Ohio-1098.
{¶42} This case is distinguishable from Rodriguez, Wood, and Neyhard.
Rogers’s stop was initiated for the investigation of a firearm offense, an inherently
dangerous situation, and not a traffic offense. Courts have long recognized that the
government’s interest in officer safety is “legitimate and weighty” and that interest
justifies certain “negligibly burdensome precautions in order to complete [the]
mission safely” that are not justified by “the Government’s endeavor to detect crime in
15 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
general.” Rodriguez at 356-357. Officer Chiappone testified to his safety concerns and
that his approach to delay ordering Rogers out of the vehicle was to “deescalate” an
unsafe situation. Rogers repeatedly indicated that he did not want to exit from the
vehicle and was extremely nervous. The steps Officer Chiappone took were designed
to “gauge” Rogers’s “nonverbal clues” to his requests, aiding the officer’s “assess[ment]
[of] the situation.” Officer Chiappone further articulated at the suppression hearing
the risk to officers during a stop “if someone was armed and had a malicious intent.”
Ultimately, Officer Chiappone wanted to make sure that “everybody went home.”
{¶43} We have already held that the Task Force officers had reasonable
suspicion to make the stop to investigate whether Rogers unlawfully concealed a
weapon. Nothing during the stop dispelled that suspicion. Ultimately, Terry’s test for
determining whether a lawful investigative stop is converted into an arrest-like
detention is “whether the degree of intrusion into the suspect’s personal security was
reasonably related to officers’ suspicions and the surrounding circumstances.”
Hairston, 156 Ohio St.3d 363, 2019-Ohio-1622, 126 N.E.3d 1132, at ¶ 21.
{¶44} Based on Officer Chiappone’s testimony, as well as the video recording
of the stop, we conclude that Officer Chiappone’s concern for safety during the
investigation into the weapons offense drove the method of the investigation. Unlike
in Rodriguez, the seizure was not prolonged for the sole purpose of a dog sniff, but to
ensure the safety of the officers and Rogers. We conclude the selected method was
objectively reasonable and diligent and, though, it resulted in a detention of more than
11 minutes, the Task Force officers did not extend the stop beyond what is lawful under
Terry.
16 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
III. Conclusion
{¶45} In sum, the totality of the circumstances in this case leads us to conclude
that the scope and duration of the detention and search of the glove box met the
Constitution’s standard of reasonableness. Considering the foregoing analysis, we
overrule all of Rogers’s assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
MYERS, P.J., concurs. CROUSE, J., dissents.
{¶46} Because Robert Rogers’s detention and the subsequent search of his
vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, I
respectfully dissent.
{¶47} The only criminal activity suspected of Rogers in this case was that
Rogers may have been illegally carrying a concealed weapon. At the time that Rogers
was stopped by the police, carrying a concealed weapon was not illegal, unless he did
not have a concealed-carry permit, was a convicted felon, or was otherwise legally
prohibited from doing so. The investigating officer did not know who Rogers was and
did not have any information that suggested Rogers was not permitted to carry a
firearm. The investigating officer did not suspect that Rogers had committed any
other crime, nor were the police looking for a suspect for a crime that had been recently
committed. It was not as if the police were investigating shots fired in the vicinity and
saw Rogers suspiciously running away in the dark of night in a high-crime area. I find
this information significant in determining the reasonableness of Rogers’s detention
and in evaluating the totality of the circumstances.
17 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶48} The officer testified that he observed Rogers reach into the passenger
compartment of his car and, based on Rogers’s upper body movement, the officer
believed that Rogers placed an object into his waistband area. The officer testified that
in his experience, the waistband “is consistent with where people place firearms when
they do not have a holster.” However, the officer did not see Rogers’s waistband or the
suspected object. The officer testified that Rogers’s “actual waist was not in [his] view.
It was behind the door of the vehicle.” The officer further testified that he observed
“for less than a second” “a suspicious bulge in the front of his waist area.” According
to the officer, the bulge was “somewhere in the front center of his body” “at waist level.”
When specifically asked by the prosecutor, “And did you see the shape of a handle of a
firearm?” the officer responded, “I saw what I believed to be a bulge.” The officer
further testified that he had “no recollection” of a bulge when Rogers came back to his
car, even though that was the reason the officer gave to the other officers to pull Rogers
over. The observations of this very experienced officer were made in a “high crime
area,” at dusk, after the officer observed two people openly carrying firearms.1
{¶49} Thus, Rogers was detained due to the investigating officer’s view of a
nondescript bulge in Roger’s waistband and his hunch that Rogers may be illegally
carrying a concealed weapon. The law is clear that a person cannot be detained based
on “inarticulate hunches.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d
889 (1968). “And simple ‘ “good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not
enough.” * * * If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth
Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be “secure in their persons,
1“Ohio is an open carry state. Thus, in basic terms, in Ohio, it is generally legal to walk down the street and openly carry a handgun * * * .” See State v. Massingill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109818, 2021-Ohio-2674, ¶ 15. 18 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
houses, papers, and effects,” only in the discretion of the police.’ ” Id. at 22, quoting
Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 97, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964), quoting Henry v.
United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). It is also important
to remember that “[t]here is no ‘automatic firearm exception’ to the Terry rule.”
Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dept., 785 F.3d 1128, 1132 (6th Cir.2015), citing
Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 272, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (2000).
{¶50} The majority opinion emphasizes that it was the totality of the
circumstances that justified the stop. According to the majority, these circumstances
were a nondescript bulge, the officer’s extensive experience, the high-crime area, the
impending darkness, and the legal open carry of firearms by two other people on the
street. But the only circumstance specific to Rogers was the bulge in his waistband.
{¶51} The facts that it was dusk and that Rogers was in a “high crime” area
known for gun violence are “contextual factors” not specific to Rogers and, while
relevant to the reasonable-suspicion analysis, do not provide a sufficient basis to
conclude that Rogers himself was illegally carrying a concealed weapon. See State v.
Hairston, 156 Ohio St.3d 363, 2019-Ohio-1622, 126 N.E.3d 1132, ¶ 71 (Stewart, J.,
dissenting) (“In the absence of any objective, articulable facts reasonably linking
Hairston in particular to the gunshots, contextual factors such as the time of day and
the area’s reputation are of scant analytical value.”), citing Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S.
47, 52, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979) (“The fact that appellant was in a
neighborhood frequented by drug users, standing alone, is not a basis for concluding
that appellant himself was engaged in criminal conduct.”); United States v. Young,
707 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir.2012) (“We have warned that contextual factors, such as
high-crime, should not be given too much weight because they raise concerns of racial,
19 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ethnic, and socioeconomic profiling.”); Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810,
830 (6th Cir.2005) (“While officers can surely and appropriately take into account the
fact that an area is a high crime area, that alone, does not justify effectuating a
seizure.”).
{¶52} Regarding the one fact specific to Rogers–the bulge—I am not aware of
any case that has held that simply observing a nondescript bulge in a person’s
waistband, absent any other suspicious behavior, amounts to a reasonable articulable
suspicion to support a Terry stop for illegally carrying a concealed weapon.
{¶53} In State v. Taylor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92382, 2009-Ohio-5822, ¶ 7,
the officer testified that “she observed the handle of a gun protruding from Taylor’s
waistband.” She observed this handle “on a clear night with good visibility,” in a “high
crime area” after observing the defendant ‘for five minutes’.” Id. at ¶ 4. The fact that
the officer observed a part of the gun was the key to the court holding that the officer
had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that Taylor might be carrying a concealed
weapon. Id. at ¶ 7-8 (“After observing the gun handle, Murphy formed a reasonable
and articulable suspicion that Taylor might be engaged in criminal activity.”). This
was emphasized by then-Judge, now Justice Stewart, in her concurrence when she
noted:
Unlike cases in which an officer sees a misshapen bulge in clothing or
one pocket of a coat riding lower than another, the description of a gun
handle provides a degree of specificity which led to a reasonable
suspicion that Taylor was carrying a concealed weapon.
(Emphasis added.) Id. at ¶ 11. She further explained:
20 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
In this case, the suspicion that Taylor might be concealing a gun was
more than conjecture—the undercover officer saw the shape of a gun
handle, not just an amorphous bulge, sticking out from beneath Taylor’s
shirt.
Id. at ¶ 19; see State v. Moyer, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-434, 2009-Ohio-6777,
¶ 25 (“Indeed, in what may be the most glaring factor, Officer Alli testified that when
she saw defendant running, she also saw defendant holding what she believed to be a
firearm. An officer’s seeing an object the officer reasonably believed to be a firearm in
a person’s hand creates reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant is, or is about
to be, engaged in criminal activity, namely carrying a concealed weapon.”); United
States v. Capozzoli, E.D.Mich. No. 22-20005, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137103, *11 (Aug.
2, 2022) (“Having seen a concealed weapon, the officers had reasonable suspicion to
investigate whether Defendant in fact had a firearm on his person, including by
approaching him and asking Defendant questions.” (Emphasis sic.))
{¶54} Cases that have found a bulge in a person’s pocket or clothing to be
enough to justify a stop for suspicion of illegally carrying a concealed weapon have
required that the bulge be described as having the obvious shape of a gun. See, e.g.,
United States v. Bell, 572 Fed.Appx. 417, 419 (6th Cir.2014) (“The officer’s belief, based
on his eyewitness observations, that the defendant had a bulge in his pocket that was
in the shape of a gun provides ‘reasonable suspicion’ under the Terry doctrine that
the defendant was carrying a concealed pistol. Defense counsel does not argue that
carrying such a concealed weapon in Michigan is legal, but rather that simply having
his hand on a ‘bulge’ in his pocket is not sufficient to trigger a valid Terry stop. Here,
however, the testimony was that the ‘bulge’ was in the shape of a gun.” (Emphasis
21 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
added.)); United States v. Pope, 212 Fed.Appx. 214, 217 (4th Cir.2007) (“Both
[officers] personally observed what they knew to be the outline of a gun concealed
beneath defendant’s clothing.” (Emphasis added.)); United States v. Bontemps, 977
F.3d 909, 917 (9th Cir.2020) (Noting that the officer’s bodycam footage “shows a gun-
shaped bulge” and stating that “[t]he dissent is * * * incorrect in implying that our
holding allows any bulge of any kind to justify a Terry stop. Our holding is instead
that a bulge suggestive of a firearm can be sufficient to create reasonable suspicion,
and that in this case there was ample evidence from which to conclude that Bontemps’s
‘obvious’ bulge was likely a concealed firearm.”); Golden v. United States, 248 A.3d
925, 942 (D.C.2021), quoting Singleton v. United States, 998 A.2d 295 (D.C.Cir.2010)
(“[T]he bulge [the officer] saw on Mr. Golden’s right hip was not in the shape of a gun
and was not distinctive in any way * * *. A generic bulge in the location the officer saw
it ‘can be explained by too many innocent causes to constitute reasonable suspicion’
by itself. When we and other courts have held it reasonable to infer that a bulge in a
suspect’s clothing was a firearm, there were additional observed facts about the bulge,
the suspect’s actions linked to it, and/or other circumstances that supported the
inference.”); In re Jeremy P., 197 Md.App. 1, 19, 11 A.3d 830 (2011) (“Here, there was
no proof of a describable object that reasonably could have been suspected of being a
gun. [The officer] neither saw the outline of a gun, nor any part of what appeared to
be a gun. Significantly, he was completely unable to describe the bulge.”); United
States v. Jordan, N.D.Ga. No. 1:08-CR-369-JOF-RGV, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145607,
*3 (Oct. 6, 2009) (holding that the stop of the defendant was legal because the officer
“did not simply observe a bulge,” rather he testified that “he saw in defendant’s pocket
a bulge that looked like a handgun.”).
22 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶55} In this case, the officer saw a nondescript bulge in Rogers’s waistband
for “less than a second.” When asked by the prosecutor if he saw the shape of a handle
of a firearm, the officer merely replied, “I saw what I believed to be a bulge.” The fact
that the officer was experienced and made this observation at dusk, in a “high crime”
area, does not turn his belief that Rogers was carrying a concealed firearm into
anything more than an inarticulate hunch.
{¶56} It is important to emphasize that Rogers was stopped solely because the
police suspected he was illegally carrying a concealed firearm. Rogers was not
suspected of any other crime. Under the law in effect at the time Rogers was stopped,
there was a presumption that carrying a concealed firearm was illegal. This is because
a concealed-carry permit was an affirmative defense to a charge of carrying a
concealed weapon. Therefore, some Ohio courts have held that the police may briefly
detain someone whom they reasonably believe is possessing a concealed weapon to
determine whether they are legally carrying it. See, e.g., Taylor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 92382, 2009-Ohio-5822, at ¶ 8 (“Because Murphy did not know whether Taylor
had a permit, she had a reasonable suspicion that he might be carrying a weapon
illegally”); see also Moyer, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-434, 2009-Ohio-6777, at ¶ 25
(“An officer’s seeing an object the officer reasonably believed to be a firearm in a
person's hand creates reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant is, or is about
to be, engaged in criminal activity, namely carrying a concealed weapon.”). But see
Taylor at ¶ 12, (Stewart, J., concurring) (“This resolution means that an officer’s
knowledge, or lack thereof, regarding the legal status of a person carrying a concealed
weapon–without more–will always be sufficient to articulate a reasonable suspicion
that the person’s concealed carry is illegal. It is difficult to reconcile this analysis in
23 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
light of the concealed-carry laws.”); State v. Price-Williams, 973 N.W.2d 556, 576
(Iowa 2022) (Appel, J., dissenting) (“An argument can now be made that with so many
persons lawfully possessing handguns, authorization of law enforcement to search a
person for possession of a weapon amounts to a type of general warrant that the
Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.”)2
{¶57} The majority opinion holds that a police officer may conduct an
investigative stop of any person present in a high-crime area when it is dark if that
officer observed some sort of nondescript bulge in the person’s waistband that, based
on his experience, he believed to be a gun. No further information about the bulge,
that person, suspicious behavior, or investigation of a crime in the area is necessary.
Pursuant to all relevant caselaw, such a determination exceeds the bounds of Terry
and eviscerates our Fourth Amendment protections. That the officer’s hunch
ultimately proved to be correct in this case cannot justify the fact that Rogers’s Fourth
Amendment rights were violated. See, e.g., In re M.P., 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos.
C-130663 and C-130741, 2014-Ohio-2846, ¶ 11 (holding that “[a]lthough the
soundness of Detective Longworth’s hunch of M.P. was borne out by the end result,”
the stop of the defendant nevertheless violated the Fourth Amendment).
2 As of June 13, 2022, a permit is no longer required for a “qualifying adult” to carry a concealed handgun. See 2022 Sub.S.B. No. 215; R.C. 2923.111(B). This statutory change will make it even more difficult for our police to protect our citizens from gun violence because arguably they will no longer be able to use the presence of a concealed weapon as the sole basis for detaining an individual. See, e.g., Northup v. City of Toledo Police Dept., 785 F.3d 1128, 1132 (6th Cir.2015), quoting United States v. King, 990 F.2d 1552 (10th Cir.1993) (holding that officers did not have a reasonable suspicion that Northup was engaged in criminal activity when officer saw a gun on his hip because open carry of a firearm is legal in Ohio and holding that “[t]o allow stops in this setting ‘would effectively eliminate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed persons.’ ”); see also Fields, Stop and Frisk in a Concealed Carry World, 93 Wash.L.Rev. 1675, 1687 (2018) (“The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions recognizing an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for personal protection and concurrent increase in the number of states authorizing concealed and open carry of firearms in public has forced a reexamination of traditional stop and frisk jurisprudence.”). 24 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶58} For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.