[Cite as State v. Workman, 2026-Ohio-2099.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2026 CA 004
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2025 CR 0196 JOSHUA A. WORKMAN Judgment: Affirmed Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: June 3, 2026
BEFORE: Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; Robert G. Montgomery, Judges
APPEARANCES: R. KYLE WITT, for Plaintiff-Appellee; CHRISTOPHER BAZELEY, for Defendant-Appellant.
King, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Joshua Workman appeals the January 6, 2026
judgment of conviction and sentence of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas.
Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On December 24, 2024, Fairfield County Sheriff's Deputy Justin Mann was
on routine patrol at 1:30 a.m. when he observed a Dodge Ram pick-up truck traveling east
on I-70 without a visible license plate. Mann initiated a traffic stop as the driver pulled
into a gas station.
{¶ 3} Deputy Mann had to get very close to the rear cab of the truck before he
could make out a temporary tag which was taped to the inside of the rear tinted window
of the truck. The driver was Jessica Mullins. Workman was in the passenger seat. Mann requested Mullins' registration, proof of insurance and identification from both
occupants. Mullins was unable to provide registration, or proof of insurance. She told
Mann that Workman's mother had coverage on the truck. She handed Mann
identification for herself and Workman, but the identification she provided for Workman
was for a person by the name of Marion Marian.
{¶ 4} Deputy Mann ran the tag number on the truck and identification for both
parties. He was advised by dispatch that Marion Marian had an active warrant for his
arrest. Based on this information, Mann placed Workman in custody and placed him in
his cruiser. Upon getting Workman out of the truck, he observed drug paraphernalia in
plain view in the passenger side door pocket. He therefore conducted a probable cause
search during which he discovered controlled substances. Workman took responsibility
for the drugs.
{¶ 5} Workman was subsequently charged with one count of aggravated
possession of drugs, a felony of the third degree, and one count of possession of cocaine,
a felony of the fifth degree.
{¶ 6} Workman pled not guilty to the charges and filed a motion to suppress. A
hearing on the motion took place on October 1, 2025. Deputy Mann testified on behalf of
the State and his body camera footage was played for the trial court. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the trial court denied Workman's motion. Workman subsequently entered
pleas of no contest and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 36 months.
{¶ 7} Workman filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for
consideration. He raises one assignment of error as follows: I
{¶ 8} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERRULED WORKMAN'S
MOTION TO SUPPRESS."
{¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Workman argues the trial court erred in
overruling his motion to suppress. We disagree.
Standard of Review
{¶ 10} There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court's ruling on a
motion to suppress. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's findings of fact. In
reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether said
findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio
St.3d 19 (1982); State v. Klein, 73 Ohio App.3d 486 (1991); State v. Guysinger, 86 Ohio
App.3d 592 (1993). Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed to apply the
appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In that case, an appellate court can
reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d
37 (1993). Finally, assuming the trial court's findings of fact are not against the manifest
weight of the evidence and it has properly identified the law to be applied, an appellant
may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issue raised in the
motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an appellate court must
independently determine, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the
facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State v. Curry, 95 Ohio
App.3d 93 (1994); State v. Claytor, 85 Ohio App.3d 623 (1993); Guysinger, supra. As the
United States Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690 (1996), “... as a general
matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de
novo on appeal.” {¶ 11} When ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of
trier of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate the
credibility of witnesses. See State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 314; State v. Fanning, 1
Ohio St.3d 19, 20 (1982).
Workman's Argument
{¶ 12} Here, Workman challenges the trial court's findings of fact. Specifically, he
disagrees with the trial court's finding that there was a violation of R.C. 4503.21. He
argues because there was no violation of R.C. 4503.21, there was no justification for the
deputy to prolong the stop or ask Mullins or Workman for identification.
{¶ 13} As noted above, we review such a challenge under a manifest weight
standard. On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire record,
weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and
determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost
its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be
reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st
Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). The granting of a new
trial "should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs
heavily against the conviction." Martin at 175.
{¶ 14} R.C. 4503.21(3) and (4) provide:
(3) Subject to section 4503.211 of the Revised Code, no person to whom a
temporary motor vehicle license registration has been issued for the use of
a motor vehicle under section 4503.182 of the Revised Code, and no
operator of that motor vehicle, shall fail to display the temporary motor vehicle license registration in plain view from the rear of the vehicle either
in the rear window or on an external rear surface of the motor vehicle.
(4) No person shall cover a temporary motor vehicle license registration by
any material that obstructs its visibility.
{¶ 15} Deputy Mann testified that the truck Workman was riding in drew his
attention because he noticed it did not have a license plate displayed. Transcript of
suppression hearing (T.) at 11. Mann therefore conducted a traffic stop. T. 13. During the
suppression hearing, the State played Mann's body camera footage, which we have
reviewed. The stop took place at 1:30 a.m. The driver of the truck pulled in to a well-lit
gas station. State's exhibit A.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Workman, 2026-Ohio-2099.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2026 CA 004
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion And Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2025 CR 0196 JOSHUA A. WORKMAN Judgment: Affirmed Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: June 3, 2026
BEFORE: Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; Robert G. Montgomery, Judges
APPEARANCES: R. KYLE WITT, for Plaintiff-Appellee; CHRISTOPHER BAZELEY, for Defendant-Appellant.
King, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Joshua Workman appeals the January 6, 2026
judgment of conviction and sentence of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas.
Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On December 24, 2024, Fairfield County Sheriff's Deputy Justin Mann was
on routine patrol at 1:30 a.m. when he observed a Dodge Ram pick-up truck traveling east
on I-70 without a visible license plate. Mann initiated a traffic stop as the driver pulled
into a gas station.
{¶ 3} Deputy Mann had to get very close to the rear cab of the truck before he
could make out a temporary tag which was taped to the inside of the rear tinted window
of the truck. The driver was Jessica Mullins. Workman was in the passenger seat. Mann requested Mullins' registration, proof of insurance and identification from both
occupants. Mullins was unable to provide registration, or proof of insurance. She told
Mann that Workman's mother had coverage on the truck. She handed Mann
identification for herself and Workman, but the identification she provided for Workman
was for a person by the name of Marion Marian.
{¶ 4} Deputy Mann ran the tag number on the truck and identification for both
parties. He was advised by dispatch that Marion Marian had an active warrant for his
arrest. Based on this information, Mann placed Workman in custody and placed him in
his cruiser. Upon getting Workman out of the truck, he observed drug paraphernalia in
plain view in the passenger side door pocket. He therefore conducted a probable cause
search during which he discovered controlled substances. Workman took responsibility
for the drugs.
{¶ 5} Workman was subsequently charged with one count of aggravated
possession of drugs, a felony of the third degree, and one count of possession of cocaine,
a felony of the fifth degree.
{¶ 6} Workman pled not guilty to the charges and filed a motion to suppress. A
hearing on the motion took place on October 1, 2025. Deputy Mann testified on behalf of
the State and his body camera footage was played for the trial court. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the trial court denied Workman's motion. Workman subsequently entered
pleas of no contest and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 36 months.
{¶ 7} Workman filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for
consideration. He raises one assignment of error as follows: I
{¶ 8} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERRULED WORKMAN'S
MOTION TO SUPPRESS."
{¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Workman argues the trial court erred in
overruling his motion to suppress. We disagree.
Standard of Review
{¶ 10} There are three methods of challenging on appeal a trial court's ruling on a
motion to suppress. First, an appellant may challenge the trial court's findings of fact. In
reviewing a challenge of this nature, an appellate court must determine whether said
findings of fact are against the manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio
St.3d 19 (1982); State v. Klein, 73 Ohio App.3d 486 (1991); State v. Guysinger, 86 Ohio
App.3d 592 (1993). Second, an appellant may argue the trial court failed to apply the
appropriate test or correct law to the findings of fact. In that case, an appellate court can
reverse the trial court for committing an error of law. State v. Williams, 86 Ohio App.3d
37 (1993). Finally, assuming the trial court's findings of fact are not against the manifest
weight of the evidence and it has properly identified the law to be applied, an appellant
may argue the trial court has incorrectly decided the ultimate or final issue raised in the
motion to suppress. When reviewing this type of claim, an appellate court must
independently determine, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether the
facts meet the appropriate legal standard in any given case. State v. Curry, 95 Ohio
App.3d 93 (1994); State v. Claytor, 85 Ohio App.3d 623 (1993); Guysinger, supra. As the
United States Supreme Court held in Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690 (1996), “... as a general
matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed de
novo on appeal.” {¶ 11} When ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court assumes the role of
trier of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate the
credibility of witnesses. See State v. Dunlap, 73 Ohio St.3d 308, 314; State v. Fanning, 1
Ohio St.3d 19, 20 (1982).
Workman's Argument
{¶ 12} Here, Workman challenges the trial court's findings of fact. Specifically, he
disagrees with the trial court's finding that there was a violation of R.C. 4503.21. He
argues because there was no violation of R.C. 4503.21, there was no justification for the
deputy to prolong the stop or ask Mullins or Workman for identification.
{¶ 13} As noted above, we review such a challenge under a manifest weight
standard. On review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire record,
weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and
determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the [finder of fact] clearly lost
its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be
reversed and a new trial ordered." State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st
Dist.1983). See also, State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). The granting of a new
trial "should be exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs
heavily against the conviction." Martin at 175.
{¶ 14} R.C. 4503.21(3) and (4) provide:
(3) Subject to section 4503.211 of the Revised Code, no person to whom a
temporary motor vehicle license registration has been issued for the use of
a motor vehicle under section 4503.182 of the Revised Code, and no
operator of that motor vehicle, shall fail to display the temporary motor vehicle license registration in plain view from the rear of the vehicle either
in the rear window or on an external rear surface of the motor vehicle.
(4) No person shall cover a temporary motor vehicle license registration by
any material that obstructs its visibility.
{¶ 15} Deputy Mann testified that the truck Workman was riding in drew his
attention because he noticed it did not have a license plate displayed. Transcript of
suppression hearing (T.) at 11. Mann therefore conducted a traffic stop. T. 13. During the
suppression hearing, the State played Mann's body camera footage, which we have
reviewed. The stop took place at 1:30 a.m. The driver of the truck pulled in to a well-lit
gas station. State's exhibit A. While the video shows a temporary tag displayed in the rear
window of the truck, it is obscured by the window tint. Id. Mann testified he could not
read the tag until he was standing beside the truck and, "within an arm's reach." T. 13-14.
{¶ 16} Deputy Mann then approached the driver, Mullins, and asked for her
registration and proof of insurance. Mullins could not initially produce her registration
and indicated she was "between insurance." While gesturing toward Workman, she stated
Workman's mother had insurance coverage on the truck. State's exhibit A. Mann then
asked for Workman's identification. Mullins handed an identification card to Mann that
belonged to a Marion Marian, not Workman, as well as her own identification which was
a paper driver's license. Id., T. 22.
{¶ 17} When Deputy Mann checked the identification for Marian, he discovered
Marian had an active warrant. Mann therefore asked Workman to exit the truck and sit
in his cruiser until he could sort the situation. When Workman opened the passenger door
of the truck, drug paraphernalia was clearly visible in the inside door pocket. Mann therefore performed a probable cause search during which he found drug paraphernalia,
crack cocaine, and methamphetamine. Even though the methamphetamine was found in
Mullins' purse, Workman took ownership of the same. State's exhibit A.
{¶ 18} Workman argues the record reflects no violation of R.C. 4503.21 and
therefore Deputy Mann impermissibly extended the stop in order to turn the stop into a
fishing expedition after his initial suspicion and cause for the traffic stop evaporated. Yet
Mann clearly testified he was unable to read the temporary tag taped to the inside of a
rear window of the truck until he was beside the truck due to dark window tint. Further,
the rear exterior of the cab was not illuminated. T. 14.
{¶ 19} Workman likens his case to U.S. v. Jones, 479 F. Appx. 705 (6th Cir. 2012).
In that matter, the court found it is "clear from existing Ohio law that an unobstructed
and unilluminated temporary license plate affixed to a vehicle's rear window that was
both visible and legible from the rear of the vehicle did not violate R.C. 4503.21." But here,
Mann testified the tag was not visible and legible from the rear of the vehicle. He testified
it was not visible or legible as he was seated in his cruiser behind the vehicle, and he could
not make out the tag until he was beside the vehicle "within an arm's reach." T. 14.
{¶ 20} Deputy Mann's credibility was a matter for the trial court to determine.
Given Mann's testimony and video corroboration, which the trial court viewed, we find
no error in the trial court's factual findings. This is not, therefore, an exceptional case in
which the evidence weighs heavily against the trial court's decision that a violation of R.C.
4503.21 occurred. Judgment entry denying motion to suppress, docket item 31, at 2, 4-5.
{¶ 21} Workman's sole assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 22} For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, the judgment of the
Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
{¶ 23} Costs to Appellant.
By: King, P. J.
Hoffman, J. and
Montgomery, J. concur.