- by Jack Ryan
Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute

At some point during the open police surveillance of the lot, officers observed David Lester drive into the lot. Lester “pulled into a parking spot, appeared to notice the various police cruisers, made eye contact with Sergeant Fritz, then immediately backed out of the parking space and drove toward the exit.” Lester was stopped as he attempted to drive out of the lot.

An officer approached Lester and told him why the officers were present. The officer then asked Lester if he had any explosives in his car. Lester responded by saying he did not think so. Lester then became nervous and at some point indicated that the “may be” an unloaded firearm in the vehicle. A canine sniffed the outside of Lester’s vehicle and alerted on the pickup’s bed. A search of the truck bed based on Lester’s consent led to the seizure of a firearm. Lester sought to have the firearm suppressed arguing that his consent was the result of an illegal stop.

In its review of the case the Ohio Appellate Court began by noting that police may stop individuals based on reasonable suspicion. The court found that Lester’s conduct, pulling into a parking space and immediately pulling out after making eye contact with the police, coupled with the bomb threat information, amounted to reasonable suspicion to make the stop.

The court went on to note, that Lester’s evasive answers regarding explosives and his nervousness gave officers heightened suspicion to believe that Lester was involved in criminal activity. Finally the court noted that the canine alert provided the officers with probable cause to search Lester’s vehicle even if he had not consented. In conclusion, the court held that the search of the truck was lawful.