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.

Ordinarily, a person’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures applies to one’s home. The police are not permitted to enter a person’s home without a warrant. By extension, entering an unattached garage, in most instances, is considered part of the home and, once again a warrantless search and subsequent arrest is not permitted. By extension, any evidence obtained is subject to suppression.

This principle applies to DUI/OVI arrests. Normally, a police officer is not permitted to enter one’s home to arrest that person for this offense. Nor can the officer enter the garage for the same reason.

Of course there are exceptions to this rule. A recent Ohio case, State v. Lake, outlines one of those exceptions. In the case, the Defendant was observed violating several traffic laws and proceeded to drive his vehicle into his garage. The Defendant argued in his suppression motion that he was illegally arrested because he was in his garage at the time of the arrest and the police were not permitted to enter his garage without a warrant. The trial court overruled the Defendant’s motion and he was eventually found guilty. The Defendant appealed the court’s ruling stating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the police coming onto his property to effectuate his arrest.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals (Columbiana County) took exception to the Defendant’s argument. The Court held that the “hot pursuit” entry exception applied. They then stated that a defendant cannot defeat an arrest which has been set in motion in a public place by the escape to a private place, reiterating U.S. v. Watson, a 1976 U. S. Supreme Court case on point. In 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court extended this principle to misdemeanors, see Middletown v. Flinchum.

The court reasoned that since the officers observed at least two traffic violations, they had probable cause to stop the Defendant and pursue the Defendant into his “home” to effectuate an arrest.

So the next time you opine that a policeman can not arrest you when you are in your own home, you may want to think about the fact pattern cited in this post.