[Cite as State v. Walker, 2024-Ohio-303.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230339 TRIAL NO. B-2206032 Plaintiff-Appellee, : O P I N I O N. vs. :
TROY WALKER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 31, 2024
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
William F. Oswall, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BERGERON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Through a motion to suppress, defendant-appellant Troy Walker sought
to exclude evidence of a firearm recovered by police from his pocket during a traffic
stop by challenging the officers’ grounds for the traffic stop and for asking him to step
out of the vehicle. Having lost that argument, he tries a new approach on appeal,
challenging the officers’ grounds for conducting a pat-down search on him, which
uncovered the firearm. But because he failed to raise that argument below, we review
the pat-down issue only for plain error. Finding no such error, we overrule his sole
assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court denying suppression of
the firearm.
I.
{¶2} During police surveillance of multiple hotels at which officers suspected
ongoing drug, prostitution, and “some violent” activity, an undercover officer observed
a car driven by Mr. Walker repeatedly moving in and out of a parking spot at one hotel.
Suspecting the car’s involvement in drug activity, he notified other officers about the
vehicle. Another undercover officer observed the driver commit multiple traffic
violations including a turn signal violation, speeding, and reckless operation. A third
officer initiated a traffic stop and noticed a strong smell of raw marijuana emanating
from the vehicle as she approached it. She asked the driver, Mr. Walker, to step out
and inquired about the smell. He admitted to possessing marijuana in the car and
acknowledged that he and his passenger had recently consumed marijuana. But he
also produced his medical marijuana card, which the officer confirmed was valid.
{¶3} Soon after, the undercover officer who observed Mr. Walker’s car at the
hotel arrived and asked him to step behind the vehicle to perform a pat-down search.
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
He felt a “hard box” object in his right pants pocket and asked him about it. Mr. Walker
insisted, “It’s not mine.” As he started to move his hands, the officer instructed him
not to move, unzipped the pocket, and pulled out a firearm. The officer testified that
he initiated the pat-down after observing Mr. Walker repeatedly looking at the vehicle
and making “movements,” raising suspicion that he might try to flee in the vehicle.
Further, when he asked Mr. Walker to move behind the police car before the pat-down
so that they would be out of the roadway, he saw something heavy dragging down his
pants below his waist as he moved. Combined with the hotel surveillance and his view
that “drugs and guns often come together,” these observations led the officer to suspect
that Mr. Walker carried a firearm and to conduct the pat-down. The state later
indicted him on three felony gun charges: Carrying Concealed Weapons, in violation
of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), Having Weapons While Under Disability, in violation of R.C.
2923.13(A)(2), and Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle, in violation of
R.C. 2923.16(B).
{¶4} Mr. Walker filed a motion to suppress, claiming officers violated Article
I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution by searching the vehicle without probable cause, but he did not
challenge the pat-down search that uncovered the firearm. During cross-examination
of the officers at the suppression hearing, defense counsel briefly asked one officer
whether the pat-down was performed on suspicion of any crime, but he did not cross-
examine the officer who performed the pat-down. Near the end of the hearing, the
court asked defense counsel whether the firearm was found on Mr. Walker’s person
and not in the vehicle, which counsel confirmed. The court asked counsel whether
that changed his argument, and counsel said, “No. My argument is that there was no
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
reasonable grounds to even get him out of the car in the first place.” The trial court
denied the motion in a brief entry, finding “the traffic stop was lawful, the defendant
was not removed from the car illegally, and the Terry search was reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances,” referencing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20
L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Mr. Walker pleaded no contest to the gun charges, and the trial
court imposed a sentence of community control. He now challenges the pat-down
search on appeal, and the state contends he waived the issue by failing to challenge it
at the suppression hearing.
II.
{¶5} At the outset, we conclude that Mr. Walker failed to raise the
constitutionality of the pat-down search under Terry and its progeny in the trial court
below. Generally, when a defendant fails to object or raise an issue below, the issue is
not preserved for appeal, and a reviewing court can only reverse on plain error
grounds. State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); Crim.R.
52(B); see State v. Thomas, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120561, 2013-Ohio-5386, ¶ 33
(assessing Fourth Amendment search issue only for plain error after defendant
withdrew motion to suppress in the trial court). When a party “ ‘intentional[ly]
relinquish[es] or abandon[s] [] a known right,’ ” though, that issue is fully waived and
cannot be considered on appeal, even for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.
458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); see State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385,
2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 20. Holding that he failed to raise the issue, rather
than intentionally relinquishing it, we review the trial court’s judgment on the Terry
pat-down for plain error. 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶6} Accordingly, Mr. Walker must show that an error occurred, that the
error was plain, meaning “obvious,” and that the error affected his “substantial rights,”
meaning it “affected the outcome of the trial.” Barnes at 27; Crim.R. 52(B). To show
the error affected the outcome, the defendant must “demonstrate [] a reasonable
probability that but for [the error], the outcome of the trial would have been different.”
State v. Mounts, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210608, 2023-Ohio-3861, ¶ 48-52
(synthesizing recent Supreme Court of Ohio plain error cases); see State v. Bailey, 171
Ohio St.3d 486, 2022-Ohio-4407, 218 N.E.3d 858, ¶ 8; State v. Brunson, 171 Ohio
St.3d 384, 2022-Ohio-4299, 218 N.E.3d 765, ¶ 25; State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605,
2022-Ohio-1556, 200 N.E.3d 1048, ¶ 22.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Walker, 2024-Ohio-303.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230339 TRIAL NO. B-2206032 Plaintiff-Appellee, : O P I N I O N. vs. :
TROY WALKER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: January 31, 2024
Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
William F. Oswall, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
BERGERON, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Through a motion to suppress, defendant-appellant Troy Walker sought
to exclude evidence of a firearm recovered by police from his pocket during a traffic
stop by challenging the officers’ grounds for the traffic stop and for asking him to step
out of the vehicle. Having lost that argument, he tries a new approach on appeal,
challenging the officers’ grounds for conducting a pat-down search on him, which
uncovered the firearm. But because he failed to raise that argument below, we review
the pat-down issue only for plain error. Finding no such error, we overrule his sole
assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court denying suppression of
the firearm.
I.
{¶2} During police surveillance of multiple hotels at which officers suspected
ongoing drug, prostitution, and “some violent” activity, an undercover officer observed
a car driven by Mr. Walker repeatedly moving in and out of a parking spot at one hotel.
Suspecting the car’s involvement in drug activity, he notified other officers about the
vehicle. Another undercover officer observed the driver commit multiple traffic
violations including a turn signal violation, speeding, and reckless operation. A third
officer initiated a traffic stop and noticed a strong smell of raw marijuana emanating
from the vehicle as she approached it. She asked the driver, Mr. Walker, to step out
and inquired about the smell. He admitted to possessing marijuana in the car and
acknowledged that he and his passenger had recently consumed marijuana. But he
also produced his medical marijuana card, which the officer confirmed was valid.
{¶3} Soon after, the undercover officer who observed Mr. Walker’s car at the
hotel arrived and asked him to step behind the vehicle to perform a pat-down search.
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
He felt a “hard box” object in his right pants pocket and asked him about it. Mr. Walker
insisted, “It’s not mine.” As he started to move his hands, the officer instructed him
not to move, unzipped the pocket, and pulled out a firearm. The officer testified that
he initiated the pat-down after observing Mr. Walker repeatedly looking at the vehicle
and making “movements,” raising suspicion that he might try to flee in the vehicle.
Further, when he asked Mr. Walker to move behind the police car before the pat-down
so that they would be out of the roadway, he saw something heavy dragging down his
pants below his waist as he moved. Combined with the hotel surveillance and his view
that “drugs and guns often come together,” these observations led the officer to suspect
that Mr. Walker carried a firearm and to conduct the pat-down. The state later
indicted him on three felony gun charges: Carrying Concealed Weapons, in violation
of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2), Having Weapons While Under Disability, in violation of R.C.
2923.13(A)(2), and Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle, in violation of
R.C. 2923.16(B).
{¶4} Mr. Walker filed a motion to suppress, claiming officers violated Article
I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the U.S. Constitution by searching the vehicle without probable cause, but he did not
challenge the pat-down search that uncovered the firearm. During cross-examination
of the officers at the suppression hearing, defense counsel briefly asked one officer
whether the pat-down was performed on suspicion of any crime, but he did not cross-
examine the officer who performed the pat-down. Near the end of the hearing, the
court asked defense counsel whether the firearm was found on Mr. Walker’s person
and not in the vehicle, which counsel confirmed. The court asked counsel whether
that changed his argument, and counsel said, “No. My argument is that there was no
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
reasonable grounds to even get him out of the car in the first place.” The trial court
denied the motion in a brief entry, finding “the traffic stop was lawful, the defendant
was not removed from the car illegally, and the Terry search was reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances,” referencing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20
L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Mr. Walker pleaded no contest to the gun charges, and the trial
court imposed a sentence of community control. He now challenges the pat-down
search on appeal, and the state contends he waived the issue by failing to challenge it
at the suppression hearing.
II.
{¶5} At the outset, we conclude that Mr. Walker failed to raise the
constitutionality of the pat-down search under Terry and its progeny in the trial court
below. Generally, when a defendant fails to object or raise an issue below, the issue is
not preserved for appeal, and a reviewing court can only reverse on plain error
grounds. State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002); Crim.R.
52(B); see State v. Thomas, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-120561, 2013-Ohio-5386, ¶ 33
(assessing Fourth Amendment search issue only for plain error after defendant
withdrew motion to suppress in the trial court). When a party “ ‘intentional[ly]
relinquish[es] or abandon[s] [] a known right,’ ” though, that issue is fully waived and
cannot be considered on appeal, even for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993), quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.
458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); see State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385,
2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 20. Holding that he failed to raise the issue, rather
than intentionally relinquishing it, we review the trial court’s judgment on the Terry
pat-down for plain error. 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶6} Accordingly, Mr. Walker must show that an error occurred, that the
error was plain, meaning “obvious,” and that the error affected his “substantial rights,”
meaning it “affected the outcome of the trial.” Barnes at 27; Crim.R. 52(B). To show
the error affected the outcome, the defendant must “demonstrate [] a reasonable
probability that but for [the error], the outcome of the trial would have been different.”
State v. Mounts, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210608, 2023-Ohio-3861, ¶ 48-52
(synthesizing recent Supreme Court of Ohio plain error cases); see State v. Bailey, 171
Ohio St.3d 486, 2022-Ohio-4407, 218 N.E.3d 858, ¶ 8; State v. Brunson, 171 Ohio
St.3d 384, 2022-Ohio-4299, 218 N.E.3d 765, ¶ 25; State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605,
2022-Ohio-1556, 200 N.E.3d 1048, ¶ 22. We will reverse the trial court’s judgment
based on plain error only “under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a
manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 97, 372 N.E.2d 804
(1978).
{¶7} The U.S. Supreme Court recognized an exception to the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s general prohibition on warrantless searches in
Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889.
Under Terry, a limited protective search of the detainee's person for
concealed weapons is justified only when the officer has reasonably
concluded that “the individual whose suspicious behavior he is
investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the
officer or to others * * *.” [Terry at 24.] * * * “Where a police officer,
during an investigative stop, has a reasonable suspicion that an
individual is armed based on the totality of the circumstances, the
officer may initiate a protective search for the safety of himself and
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
others.” State v. Bobo, 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 524 N.E.2d 489 (1988),
paragraph two of the syllabus.
State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405, 408-409, 618 N.E.2d 162 (1993).
{¶8} The trial court’s conclusion that the officer’s Terry search of Mr. Walker
was reasonable does not constitute plain error. The officer’s observation of a heavy
object weighing down Mr. Walker’s pants as he walked is particularly persuasive. See
State v. Billups, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-150500, 2017-Ohio-4309, ¶ 12 (holding a
Terry frisk reasonable in part because the suspect had a bulge in his pants pocket,
among other factors); State v. Rogers, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-210666, 2022-Ohio-
4535, ¶ 31. His additional suspicions regarding Mr. Walker’s movements and glances
toward the vehicle contributed to the reasonableness of the officer’s suspicion that Mr.
Walker was presently dangerous to those around him. See State v. Olagbemiro, 1st
Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-170451 and C-170452, 2018-Ohio-3540, ¶ 20.
{¶9} Mr. Walker relies on two cases where this court held a Terry search
unreasonable. First, a Terry pat-down was unreasonable where officers received a call
about two people trying to get into a business, and the defendant initially distanced
himself from a responding officer, placed his hands in his pockets, and acted
nervously. State v. Showes, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180552, 2020-Ohio-650, ¶ 15.
Second, a pat-down was unreasonable where officers received a shot-spotter alert but
did not hear shots, arrived in the “high crime” source area after dark five minutes later,
located a man and a woman loading children into a car, did not observe the man make
concerning gestures, and did not observe a bulge in any pocket. State v. Henson, 1st
Dist. Hamilton No. C-210244, 2022-Ohio-1571, ¶ 25-31. By contrast, here, the officer
observed a heavy object on Mr. Walker’s person weighing down his pants. In the
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
context of the traffic stop, that observation is enough for us to conclude there was no
obvious error in the trial court’s determination of the reasonableness of the pat-down.
{¶10} And “when an officer is conducting a lawful pat-down search for
weapons and discovers an object on the suspect’s person which the officer, through his
or her sense of touch, reasonably believes could be a weapon, the officer may seize the
object as long as the search stays within the bounds of [Terry].” Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d
at 416, 618 N.E.2d 162. Because the trial court’s determination that the officer stayed
within the bounds of Terry did not constitute plain error, it did not err in denying the
motion to suppress.
* * *
{¶11} Having overruled his sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court denying Mr. Walker’s motion to suppress.
Judgment affirmed.
CROUSE and WINKLER, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.