Expansion of an Investigatory Stop Violates Individual’s Right Against Illegal Searches and Seizures

A recent Ohio case demonstrates the illegality of an expanded investigatory stop. As any reader of this blog knows, a police officer may stop a vehicle for a brief investigatory stop if that officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle is engaged in or is about to engage in some criminal act or traffic violation. The Forth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. A “Seizure” occurs when an office restrains an individual’s freedom for an investigatory stop.

But, short of being able to point to specific and articuable facts, which , under the totality of the circumstances, warrant a reasonable belief that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent, the officer can not seize the individual or expand the investigation.

In the case of State v. Brown, 183 Ohio App.3d 337, the court stopped an officer’s “fishing expedition.” In that case, the defendant was stopped for following too close, a minor traffic violation. The police officer than began asking irrelevant questions unrelated to the purpose of the stop. Questions included the specific reasons for the defendant’s travel, details of the reasons given, and whether they were carrying drugs or large amounts of cash.

The court stated, “The scope of a detention, to be consistent with Fourth Amendment protections, must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. The lawfulness of an initial stop will not support, under the Fourth Amendment, a fishing expedition for evidence of a crime.”

The Woods County Appellate Court went on to say, “When conducting the stop of a motor vehicle for a traffic violation, an officer may detain the vehicle for a time sufficient to investigate the reasonable, articuable suspicion for which the vehicle was initially stopped...”

The reader is cautioned that if the car itself is seized in the event of a OVI arrest, for instance, the police could initiate a legal inventory search of the vehicle and, if contraband is found, could charge the driver accordingly.

But, for an ordinary traffic stop, the officer can not go any further than the initial investigation of the traffic violation. Individuals should be aware that the officer is not permitted to go beyond the scope of their initial traffic investigation and are under no obligation to respond to any questions that go beyond the scope of the traffic investigation.

When are Miranda Warnings Required

Most practitioners might assume once an individual is placed in a police car, they are in custody and subject to Miranda warnings before any statement made be the person is admissible. A recent Hamilton County case might force an attorney to rethink this assumption.

Miranda warnings must be provided when a defendant is subject to a “custodial interrogation.” A custodial interrogation is "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way,” Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 467-468, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694.

Generally, "motorists temporarily detained pursuant to ordinary traffic stops are not in custody for purposes of Miranda," State v. Leonard, 1st Dist. No. C-060595, 2007 Ohio 3312, P 19, citing Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), 468 U.S. 420, 440, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317. But "if a motorist who has been detained pursuant to a traffic stop thereafter is subjected to treatment that renders him 'in custody' for practical purposes, he is entitled to the full panoply of protections prescribed by Miranda," Berkemer v. McCarty (1984), 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317.

The case that redefines this assumption is State v. Rice, 2009 Ohio 6332. In that case, the defendant was placed, uncuffed, in a police car and admitted have four 16 oz. beers prior to being stopped. He was not Mirandized prior to this statement. The defendant sought to suppress this statement along with field sobriety tests given prior to the Miranda warnings.

The courts reasoning was as follows:

“In this case, Rice was not in custody. Trooper Shimko had valid reasons for removing Rice from his vehicle and placing him in the cruiser. Two other passengers were in the vehicle that was stopped, and Shimko needed to determine whether the odor of alcohol had come from Rice. The interests of safety further justified placing Rice in the cruiser, since Rice had been stopped near high-speed traffic on the side of an interstate highway. Although Rice had been placed in the back seat of the cruiser, this did not transform a routine stop into a custodial interrogation. Trooper Shimko did not subject Rice to a lengthy interrogation, and Rice was not handcuffed while he was in the cruiser. Further, the interaction between Rice and Shimko was neither combative nor intimidating. Because Rice had not been subject to a custodial interrogation, Miranda warnings were not required, and his statements made in the cruiser should not have been suppressed.”

The obvious conclusion that must be drawn from this case (at least for those practicing DUI defense in Hamilton County) is that even though an individual is placed in a police car does not necessarily infer that they are in custody. Apparently, the fact that the individual was placed in a police car where the back doors automatically lock, and his movements restricted, had little influence on the court’s decision.