A Perrysburg Township cop saw something he found really suspicious back in March of 2007 - a woman driving north on 75 with her two kids in the car while she stared straight ahead with her hands placed at the 8 and 4 positions as you are taught at driving school. She was traveling at 60 miles an hour and the speed limit was 65. Straight ahead, of course, would be the road in front of her and she was the driver. The cop also saw an adult male in the car who was also staring straight ahead. So of course the cop followed them for several miles. Eventually the female driver caught up to a semi going about 55 and she got up to within two car lengths before she started to pass. Oops, too close and that gave the cop probable cause to conduct a traffic stop.
But then the cop continued fishing. He separated the driver from the adult male and asked them questions wholly unrelated to the offense of following too closely. Where you going? Why? That sort of thing. The answers were not identical which the cop also found suspicious. The Sixth District Court of Appeals noted that this cop would have found identical answers to be suspicious too. This cop also found an affirmative response to the question, "do you mind if I search your car?" to be a consent to search. After searching, the cop requested a canine which took 19 minutes to arrive. The dog hit on the car and marijuana was found in the floor underneath the seating. The adult male was eventually sentenced to a total of six years in prison.
Not so fast, says the Sixth District Court of Appeals. The Court found the cop was fishing and prolonged the stop in order to continue fishing. The cop improperly prolonged the length of the stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution. The court of appeals ruled the trial court should have granted the appellant's motion to suppress the evidence as you can read by clicking here.
