In August, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to review two cases addressing claims of Fourth Amendment violations stemming from a February 2024 traffic stop. In each instance, only Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented, voting to review the case and offering concern for the potential narrowing of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.
Through changing times, the public depends on the enduring protections of the Constitution. Chief among these is the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. Though often taken for granted, the Fourth Amendment plays a vital role in protecting personal privacy and dignity from arbitrary government intrusion.
Case law interpreting the Fourth Amendment is extensive and complex. Consistency and transparency in the amendment’s application are critical. They help ensure that citizens understand its boundaries and officers understand theirs. This aspiration may not always reflect reality, but courts must still strive for it. In the realm of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, clarity is essential: both law enforcement and the public need to know when a search crosses the constitutional line. Though each case involves unique facts, courts must still establish general, reliable markers to guide lawful, and curb unlawful, police conduct.
The two cases Justice Brunner sought to review stemmed from a single traffic stop in Ross County, in which an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper decided to let the vehicle’s passengers go on their way – yet, minutes later, he changed his mind. In each case, the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s suppression of the evidence the trooper found as a result of his search.
Despite Justice Brunner’s apparent interest in reviewing the cases, the six other justices of the Court declined to hear the appeals, leaving important constitutional questions unresolved.
On February 23, 2024, state troopers responded to a report of erratic driving on State Route 104. During his patrol, the trooper observed three vehicles traveling at least 13 miles per hour over the speed limit. After following them, the trooper pulled over the car that matched the dispatcher’s description.
Ms. Misty Lansing was driving. She was fully cooperative – she answered the officer’s questions and provided the necessary documents. In the passenger seat was Ms. Ariel Ballein. Ms. Ballein remained silent and looked straight ahead throughout the stop. The officer asked Ms. Lansing a few questions, including where they were going and where they were coming from. The officer did not ask any questions to Ms. Ballein.
The officer took Ms. Lansing’s documents and returned to his cruiser. He told his partner:
[She] carried on a good conversation with me . . . don’t have anything in her eyes . . . normal reactions . . . . I’ll get her out of here, be right back.
The trial court held that this statement concluded the stop and the investigation. As the officer approached Ms. Lansing’s vehicle from his cruiser, however, he changed his mind.
The officer – for reasons that remain unknown – returned to the driver’s side window and asked, “Alright, is there anything in the vehicle the K-9 is going to indicate to?” Ms. Lansing replied, “No.” He asked again, and she answered, “No, not that I know of.”
Nevertheless, the officer asked Ms. Lansing to exit the vehicle. He conducted a search and found drugs and paraphernalia. The officer advised Ms. Lansing of her Miranda rights and removed Ms. Ballein from the vehicle.
It is tempting to justify this search because it resulted in a drug discovery, but constitutional analysis must remain independent from outcome. The critical question is whether the search was lawful at the time it occurred, not whether it later revealed contraband.
Ms. Lansing and Ms. Ballein asserted that the search and seizure was an unlawful violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, and that the evidence should be suppressed. The Ross County Court of Common Pleas agreed, concluding that the officer extended the stop for “an impermissible period of time.” As a result, the officer was not justified in searching Ms. Lansing’s car, and the motion to suppress was granted.
But the Fourth District Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed in favor of the state’s appeal. The appellate court’s decision seemed to lower the threshold for police searches, permitting an officer to extend an investigation and prolong questioning in order to establish grounds for a search. The opinion reframes conduct that had been determined by the trial court to be unconstitutional as permissible, grounding its reasoning in notions of administrative efficiency and deference to officer intuition.
The Fourth District observed that the entire stop lasted only a few minutes, suggesting that the brief duration weighed against a constitutional violation. However, the Fourth District’s ruling seems to conflict with the United States Supreme Court precedent of Rodriguez and related caselaw which explain that the length of the stop alone is not sufficient to determine whether a search complies with Fourth Amendment requirements.
The appeals court also emphasized the “red flags” the officer alleged about the defendants’ behavior: Ms. Ballein’s silence and lack of eye contact, Ms. Lansing’s suspicious and vague response to the K-9 question, and their purportedly indirect travel route. These factors, the appellate court found, provided the officer with probable cause to search Ms. Lansing’s car.
Conversely, though, the defense asserts that the route was direct, Ms. Lansing’s response was straightforward, and as a passenger in a vehicle during a traffic stop, Ms. Ballein had the right to remain silent. If true, these factors do not appear to amount to probable cause or reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a warrantless search.
Ms. Lansing and Ms. Ballein separately appealed the Fourth District’s ruling. And by declining to hear this case, the Ohio Supreme Court missed an opportunity to clarify the scope of Fourth Amendment protections in brief traffic stops.
This case appears to prioritize results over rights and undermines the fundamental protections the Fourth Amendment was designed to uphold. The law may now implicitly endorse the idea that if a stop is short and a search uncovers contraband, constitutional violations may be overlooked.
Boundaries may now be less clear – for officers and civilians. Can a seamless traffic stop escalate to a search and seizure on an officer’s whim? Can a passenger sit quietly during a traffic stop? Should you answer curtly to avoid ambiguity? Or will your straightforward answer be interpreted as suspicious and eager? The Ohio Supreme Court declined to answer, leaving questions about our Fourth Amendment rights unanswered.