The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided a case in which an officer conducted a traffic stop after learning the basis for the stop was no longer valid. The issue was whether evidence obtained from the stop was admissible in the defendant’s trial. This issue was addressed by this court in 1984. However, in the recent case, the Court reached a different conclusion.
The 1984 Case: State v. Chatton
In State v. Chatton, a police officer stopped a vehicle because it did not have a license plate. As the officer walked-up to the vehicle, the officer observed there was a temporary license plate in the rear window. The officer asked for the driver’s license, ran it, and learned the driver’s license was under suspension. The officer arrested the driver and found a loaded firearm in the vehicle. The driver, Chatton, was convicted of Carrying a Concealed Weapon, and the case was ultimately heard by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court stated an officer must have a reasonable suspicion the driver violated the law, or the vehicle was not registered, to justify detaining the driver to check his driver’s license. Once the officer observed the temporary license plate, the officer no longer had a reasonable suspicion the driver violated the law or the vehicle was not registered. Therefore, continuing the traffic stop to check the driver’s license violated the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the firearm could not be used as evidence in Chatton’s trial.
The 2024 Case: State v. Dunlap
In State v. Dunlap, a police officer stopped a vehicle because the registered owner of the vehicle had a suspended driver’s license. As the officer walked-up to the vehicle, the officer observed the registered owner of the vehicle (a white female) was not driving the vehicle (the driver was a black male). The owner, Dunlap, was in the passenger seat. The officer asked for the driver’s license and discovered it was suspended. The officer prepared to have the vehicle towed and found a loaded firearm in the vehicle. Dunlap was convicted of Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle, and the case was ultimately heard by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Ohio Supreme Court stated an officer may continue a traffic stop to “make ordinary inquiries necessary to complete the mission of the traffic stop-including confirming that the driver has a valid driver’s license”. The mission in this case was to determine whether the driver had a valid driver’s license. Therefore, continuing the traffic stop to check the driver’s license did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the firearm could be used as evidence in Dunlap’s trial.
Why the Case Outcomes are Different
While the Chatton case and the Dunlap case have very similar facts, the lead opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court identified a factual distinction. In Chatton, the mission of the traffic stop was to confirm the vehicle was registered, and the mission was completed when the officer observed the temporary license plate in the rear window. In Dunlap, the mission of the traffic stop was to ensure the vehicle was being driven by a licensed driver, and the mission was not completed until the officer ascertained whether the driver had a valid license. In addition, according to the Court’s lead opinion, Chatton has been superseded by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. United States.
Should the Case Outcomes be Different?
The Court’s distinction between Chatton and in Dunlap is fragile. In both cases, the officer’s reasonable suspicion of a violation dissipated before the officer asked the driver for his license. Therefore, in each case, the officer did not have justification to detain the driver to request a driver’s license.
Likewise, the Court’s reliance on Rodriguez is misplaced. Rodriguez does not supersede Chatton because the legal issues are different. In Rodriguez, the officer made a valid traffic stop. After issuing a warning to the driver, the officer detained the officer ran his dog around the vehicle and ultimately seized drugs from the vehicle. The issue was the continued detention of the driver after the mission of the traffic stop was completed. The Court held the continued detention of the driver was impermissible, unless the officer had a reasonable suspicion of (other) criminal activity.
Rodriguez stated is permissible to check a driver’s license when “determining whether to issue a traffic ticket” for the violation suspected by the officer. When the officer in Rodriguez asked for the driver’s license, the officer had a reasonable suspicion the driver violated a law. When the officer in Dunlap asked for the driver’s license, the officer did not have a reasonable suspicion the driver violated the law. The officer’s suspicion was that Dunlap was driving with a suspended license, but that that violation was no longer suspected when the officer learned Dunlap was not driving. The officer had no justification to detain the driver to request his license.
The outcomes of Chatton and Dunlap should not be different. Apples should be compared to apples.