State v. Crump

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as State v. Crump, 2002-Ohio-3284.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee vs. : : C.A. CASE NO. 19021 T.C. CASE NO. 00TRC13442 GEOFFREY L. CRUMP : (Criminal Case from Municipal Court) Defendant-Appellant : . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 28th day of June, 2002. . . . . . . . . . F. Jay Newberry, Pros. Attorney, City of Kettering, 3600 Shroyer Road, Kettering, Ohio 45429, Atty. Reg. No. 0006674 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee Don A. Little, 7501 Paragon Road, Lower Level, Dayton, Ohio 45459, Atty. Reg. No. 0022761 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant . . . . . . . . . GRADY, J. {¶1} Defendant, Geoffrey L. Crump, appeals from his conviction and sentence for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, R.C. 4511.19, which were entered on Crump s plea of no contest after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶2} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE INITIAL STOP WAS WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE BECAUSE THE KETTERING 2 POLICE OFFICER WHO MADE THE INITIAL STOP OF APPELLANT WAS OUTSIDE OF HIS JURISDICTION AND WAS OUTSIDE HIS AUTHORITY. SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR {¶3} MOTION THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT S TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE BECAUSE APPELLANT S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEIZURE OF HIS PERSON WERE VIOLATED WHEN HE WAS STOPPED BY A KETTERING POLICE OFFICER OUTSIDE OF SAID OFFICER S JURISDICTION. {¶4} by Defendant Crump was arrested on November 10, 2000, Kettering Township. Police Officer David Marcum, in Washington Marcum, who was on his way to work, stopped Crump s vehicle after he observed erratic driving. Defendant argues that jurisdiction offenses because when Marcum he committed stopped and was outside and observed his territorial detained Defendant outside the for officer s jurisdiction, the seizure of Defendant violated R.C. 2935.03 and was unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. {¶5} The evidence presented at the suppression hearing demonstrates that on November 10, 2000, at around 10:30 p.m., Kettering Police Officer Marcum was driving to work in his private vehicle. Officer Marcum was wearing a police bicycle uniform that had markings clearly identifying him as a police officer. {¶6} He also wore his service revolver. While northbound on Yankee Street at Interstate 675, in Washington Township, Officer Marcum first noticed Defendant s vehicle stopped at the traffic light. As Defendant proceeded ahead of Officer Marcum on 3 Yankee Street, Officer Marcum observed Defendant s vehicle weaving, crossing the center line at least twenty times. Defendant s speed was also fluctuating up and down between 35-45 miles per hour. Defendant stopped for the stop sign at Yankee and Mad River Road, and then accelerated rapidly as he turned northbound onto Mad River Road. When Defendant attempted to turn left onto Munger Road, Defendant s vehicle ran off the road and struck a tree. began walking away, Defendant exited his vehicle and westbound on Munger. Defendant s operation of his vehicle, as observed by Officer Marcum, occurred in Washington Township, well beyond the city limits of Kettering. {¶7} check on Officer Marcum pulled up alongside of Defendant to him, whereupon Marcum s vehicle. Defendant attempted to enter Officer Marcum identified himself as a Kettering police officer and told Defendant to back away from his vehicle. In talking happened, Officer Marcum to observed Defendant about what that speech was his slurred, his eyes were glassy, and he had difficulty with agility while walking. These signs, coupled with Defendant s erratic driving led Officer Marcum to suspect that Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol. {¶8} Officer Marcum told Defendant to sit down off the side of the road for his safety. Officer Marcum asked for and was given Defendant s drivers license, Officer Marcum then used his police radio to request that a Montgomery County Sheriff s Marcum later deputy testified be sent that had leave, he would have stopped him. arrest Defendant, however. to the 4 Officer scene. Defendant attempted to Officer Marcum did not Once the deputy sheriff arrived, Officer Marcum gave him Defendant s driver s license and related what he had observed and his belief that Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. left and went on to work. arrested Defendant for Officer Marcum then The deputy sheriff subsequently driving under the influence of alcohol. {¶9} officer It is a violation of law for a municipal police to effect a warrantless arrest outside of the geographic boundaries of the political subdivision where the officer is employed, for traffic offenses committed observed by the officer outside his jurisdiction. and R.C. 2935.03; State v. Coppock (1995), 103 Ohio App. 3d 405. Such state law violations, however, do not automatically trigger application of the exclusionary rule to suppress all evidence derived from stops and seizures that violate R.C. 2935.03. {¶10} In the recent case of State v. Weideman (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 501, 2002-Ohio-1484, on similar facts, the Ohio Supreme Court outside the held that officer s when a police jurisdictional officer, limits, acting stops and detains a motorist for an offense committed and observed outside the officer s jurisdiction, that seizure is not per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. If the totality 5 of the facts and circumstances demonstrate that police had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct sufficient to warrant the investigative stop and detention, and probable cause to arrest, then while that extraterritorial seizure may violate R.C. 2935.03, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation requiring suppression of all evidence derived from the stop. Id. See also: State v. Hammons (August 28, 1998), Montgomery App. No. 16931, unreported, another case with facts similar to this case. {¶11} In this case we note that at the suppression hearing Defendant withdrew that portion of his motion to suppress challenging whether police had probable cause to arrest him. {¶12} Without question, Officer Marcum seized Defendant within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when he stopped and detained Defendant and retained Defendant s driver s license until a deputy sheriff could arrive on the scene. Clearly, however, Defendant s erratic driving behavior and the traffic violations which Officer Marcum observed, and the resulting accident, gave Officer probable cause to stop Defendant. {¶13} Defendant s manner of Marcum sufficient Weideman, supra. operating his vehicle, coupled with Defendant slurred speech, glassy eyes, and balance problems when walking, presented sufficient reason for suspicion of criminal conduct for Officer Marcum to detain Defendant until a deputy sheriff arrived on the scene. Id. 6 While Officer Marcum s extraterritorial stop and detention of Defendant may have violated R.C. 2935.03, it did not rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation requiring the suppression of all evidence obtained as a result of that stop. Id.; Hammons, supra. The trial court correctly overruled Defendant s motion to suppress. {¶14} The assignments of error are overruled. judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. WOLFF, P.J. and BROGAN, J., concur. Copies mailed to: F. Jay Newberry, Esq. Don A. Little, Esq. Hon. Thomas M. Hanna The

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.