Columbus OVI/DUI Attorney Blog
The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued a decision in State v. Fips. The Court concluded that, when the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity for a traffic stop has been dispelled, a police officer can nevertheless check the status of the driver’s license. The Court’s treatment of precedent is reminiscent of the ‘Telephone Game’.
The Facts of Fips
Officers Rose and Peltz were on patrol when they observed a car and believed the car had only one working headlight. The officers stopped the car. Officer Rose informed the driver, Fips, the reason for the stop was the inoperative headlight. Officer Rose asked Fips for his driver’s license. Fips said he did not have his license with him but did have a license. Fips gave Officer Rose his name and asked Officer Rose which headlight was out. Officer Rose did not know offhand.
Fips showed officer Rose his dashboard, which indicated both headlights were operable. Officer Rose did not check to see if both headlights were on and instead asked Fips for his social security number. Fips provided it, and Officer Rose told Fips to “hang tight for a minute”.
While Officer Rose was talking with Fips, Officer Peltz examined the headlights. Officer Peltz then told Officer Rose, “the headlight’s on”. Officer Rose responded, “it wasn’t on, right?”. Officer Peltz said, “it was the fog light that was out”. Officer Rose then said, “or the fog light was on, the headlight was out”.
Without verifying whether the headlight was out, Officer Rose gave Fips’ information to a dispatcher. The dispatcher informed Officer Rose that Fips had a warrant for his arrest and failed to reinstate his suspended driver’s license. The dispatcher had not confirmed the warrant was valid.
Officer Rose got Fips out of the vehicle, performed a pat-down, and handcuffed Fips. The officers searched the vehicle and found crack cocaine and a digital scale. Fips was indicted for felony Drug Trafficking and felony Drug Possession.
The Lower Courts’ Decisions in Fips
Fips filed a motion to suppress the evidence, and the judge denied the motion. Fips entered a plea of No Contest and was found guilty of both charges. The judge sentenced Fips to five years in prison.
Fips appealed his conviction to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, arguing the evidence should have been suppressed. The Court of Appeals agreed. The Court concluded the traffic stop was legal, but the continued detention of Fips was unlawful once Officer Rose learned both headlights were operational.
The appellate court cited State v. Chatton, which held that the driver of the vehicle may not be detained further to determine the validity of his driver’s license absent some specific and articulable facts that the detention was reasonable once the officer’s reasonable suspicion has been dispelled.
The Ohio Supreme Court’s Decision in Fips
The prosecution appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, and the Court reversed the judgement of the Eighth District Court of Appeals. Citing Rodriguez v. United States, the court observed that, once a traffic stop has been validly initiated, an officer is entitled to complete the mission of the stop, including confirmation the driver is validly licensed. Citing State v. Dunlap, the Court concluded an officer can check the status of a driver’s license, even after the initial reasonable suspicion has been dispelled. Therefore, Officer Rose was entitled to further detain Fips to check his information with the dispatcher to ensure the vehicle was being operated by a licensed driver.
The Court also concluded Fips’s failure to provide a driver’s license provided an additional justification for continuing the detention of Fips. The Court observed, “When an officer discovers facts during a traffic stop that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer may extend the traffic stop to investigate.” Officer Rose discovered the fact that Fips may not have a valid driver’s license, so Officer Rose was justified in further detaining Fips to check the validity of his license.
Fips and the Telephone Game
In my opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court has incorrectly extended the holding in Rodriguez v. United States. In that case, Rodriguez was stopped for driving on a highway shoulder. The officer completed everything related to the stop, including checking Rodriguez’s driver’s license. The officer then further detained Rodriguez for a drug dog to conduct a sniff of the vehicle. Drugs were found, and Rodriguez was convicted of Drug Possession.
The United States Supreme Court held, absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a drug dog sniff violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to determine whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before prolonging the detention for a drug dog sniff.
Rodriguez is different than Fips. In Rodriguez, throughout the traffic stop, there was no question in the officer’s mind Rodriguez was lawfully detained for driving on a highway shoulder. Therefore, the stop could continue until the mission of the stop was completed, including checking the status of Rodriguez’s license. The issue was whether the duration of the stop was unlawfully extended after the mission of the stop had been completed.
In Fips, there was a question in the officer’s mind about whether Fips was lawfully detained for an inoperable headlight. The mission of the stop was to investigate an inoperable headlight. The mission would have been completed if the officer took a few seconds to confirm whether the headlight was operable. Then, there would have been no reason to check the status of Fips’s license.
Fips is more like State v. Chatton. In that case, the officer stopped Chatton for not having a license plate. As the officer approached the vehicle on foot, the officer realized there was a temporary license plate. The officer asked for Chatton’s license, ran it, and learned the license was under suspension. The Ohio Supreme Court concluded the officer no longer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, so the officer was not justified in further detaining Chatton to check his driver’s license.
Instead of relying on Chatton in the Fips opinion, the Court relied on State v. Dunlap. The Dunlap court relied on Rodriguez for the proposition that checking the status of the driver’s license is within the mission of the traffic stop. The Court then held an officer can ask for a driver’s license, even when the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity has been dispelled. That was not the holding of Rodriguez.
The path to the holding in Fips is similar to the ‘Telephone Game’ in which the statement made by the first person in the game is much different by the time the statement is repeated by the last person in the game. The reasoning in Rodriguez was extended in Dunlap and repeated in Fips.