State v. Tolbert

Citation: 2013 Ohio 577Docket: 98310

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; February 20, 2013; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Vernon Tolbert III appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a police investigation. In July 2011, Tolbert and co-defendant Richard Williams faced a six-count indictment, including charges of drug trafficking, possession, and receiving stolen property. Tolbert filed the suppression motion, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion for stopping his vehicle. 

At the suppression hearing, Detective Kevin Fairchild testified about the investigation initiated based on information from a confidential reliable informant (CRI), who indicated that Tolbert and Williams were involved in drug trafficking. Fairchild participated in a controlled drug transaction where the CRI ordered crack cocaine from Williams, while Fairchild observed Tolbert’s vehicle at Williams's residence. The CRI confirmed Tolbert was driving for Williams. Subsequent controlled calls to Williams resulted in additional drug transactions, during which Tolbert was seen arriving at the location shortly before drugs were obtained. 

The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, indicating the police had sufficient grounds for the stop based on the credible information and observed activities.

On July 21, 2011, a confidential reliable informant (CRI) and Detective Fairchild conducted a controlled call with Williams, ordering an ounce and a half of crack cocaine. Williams indicated he was at his father's house waiting for "Z" to pick him up. While Fairchild was with the CRI, detectives surveilled Williams, who later met Tolbert at his father's home. After a brief conversation, Williams entered Tolbert's Chevrolet Camaro. The detectives followed them to the intended drug buy location and intercepted the vehicle about 100 yards from the site, based on information from the calls suggesting Williams had the drugs on him.

The search of Tolbert’s car revealed a firearm, the crack cocaine, and a digital scale. The trial court denied Tolbert’s motion to suppress evidence, affirming the reliability of the CRI's information and the officers' reasonable basis for the stop. Tolbert then entered a no contest plea, resulting in a guilty verdict on all charges, with sentences merged for firearm specifications and certain counts. The total sentence amounted to five years in prison, with the firearm specification served consecutively.

Tolbert is now appealing the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the police needed a search warrant and lacked probable cause for the vehicle stop. The standard of review acknowledges that the trial court's fact-finding is accepted if supported by credible evidence, while legal standards are assessed de novo.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless searches and seizures, allowing exceptions only under specific conditions. A warrantless arrest is deemed unconstitutional unless the officer has probable cause at the time of the arrest, defined as having facts that would lead a prudent person to believe the suspect committed or is committing an offense. Additionally, police may stop and detain individuals when they possess reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on specific, articulable facts. Courts evaluate reasonable suspicion by examining the totality of circumstances to ensure a particularized and objective basis for the suspicion.

In the case at hand, sufficient and credible information justified the police stopping Tolbert's vehicle. Officer Fairchild detailed an investigation into drug sales involving a confidential reliable informant (CRI) and a suspect named Williams, highlighting three controlled drug buys executed on July 14, 15, and 19, 2011, with Fairchild monitoring via phone. Surveillance confirmed Tolbert's presence at Williams's residence during these transactions, reinforcing the connection between Tolbert and the drug activities. On July 21, 2011, during a fourth controlled buy, Fairchild learned from Williams that Tolbert was to pick him up. Detectives followed Tolbert to Williams's father’s house, where they observed the two interact before driving to the buy location. Approximately 100 yards from the site, detectives stopped their vehicle and found crack cocaine, a gun, and a scale in Tolbert's car.

In State v. Hale, the court determined that police had probable cause to stop and arrest the defendant based on a series of observations during a controlled buy involving marijuana. Surveillance showed the defendant's vehicle arriving at a dealer's mobile home, where a passenger exited with a bag resembling the shape of three pounds of marijuana. After a brief period, the passenger returned empty-handed. The police initiated a stop as the defendant and passenger attempted to leave the area, corroborated by a call confirming drug delivery shortly thereafter. 

In the present case, similar findings were made regarding Tolbert. The police conducted multiple controlled buys with a confidential reliable informant (CRI), with Tolbert present during key interactions. On the fourth buy, an officer heard that a suspect, Williams, was waiting for "Z," leading to Tolbert picking him up and driving to the meeting location. This established a reasonable basis for suspecting illegal activity, thus providing probable cause for the stop and search of Tolbert’s vehicle. The trial court's decision to deny Tolbert's motion to suppress was upheld, affirming the judgment and ordering costs to be taxed to the appellant. The court directed that a special mandate be issued for execution of the judgment.