RULING MAY END TRAFFIC STOP SEARCHES

The Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday that is expected to stop
or drastically reduce the police use of routine traffic stops as a ploy to
search vehicles for drugs.

Reconsidering a Dayton case sent back by the U.S. Supreme Court, the
justices voted 52 that evidence found from such searches must be thrown
out in most cases even if a motorist consents to a search.

Columbus lawyer Harry R. Reinhart, president of the Ohio Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the court recognized that people are
intimidated by police and often do not realize they can say "no."

For evidence from a search to be used in a criminal prosecution, there must
be probable cause for police to believe a crime has been committed or the
person involved must give voluntary consent, Reinhart said.

He said State Highway Patrol officers are taught under federal traffic
safety grants how to use traffic stops as a pretext for drug searches and
pass that procedure on to local law officers.

"This entire Traffic Drug Interdiction Program really is a federally run
school to teach them how to violate the Fourth Amendment," Reinhart said.

The decision written by Justice Evelyn L. Stratton said the trial judge in
the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court should have granted a defense
motion to suppress evidence from the search because consent for the search
was not truly voluntary.

The case stems from the April 3, 1992, arrest of Robert D. Robinette by
Deputy Sheriff Roger Newsome of Montgomery County.

Newsome, who was on a drug interdiction patrol, stopped Robinette for
driving 69 mph in a construction zone with a 45 mph speed limit.

The deputy gave Robinette an oral warning about speeding and returned his
drivers license. Then, following drug interdiction protocol, Newsome asked
Robinette whether he had any contraband, such as illegal weapons or drugs.

Robinette said he did not, but Newsome asked whether he could search the
car, to which Robinette said yes. The search turned up a small amount of
marijuana and one methamphetamine pill, which led Newsome to charge
Robinette with possession of drugs.

Stratton said at no point did Newsome tell Robinette he was free to go or
that he could decline to have his car searched.

"When these factors are combined with a police officer's superior position
of authority, any reasonable person would have felt compelled to submit to
the officer's questioning," Stratton said.

Joining her in the decision were Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer and Justices
Alice Robie Resnick, Paul E. Pfeifer and Deborah L. Cook.

Justices Francis E. Sweeney and Andrew Douglas dissented. Sweeney said he
agreed with the majority's legal interpretation but felt in the Robinette
case that there was no coercion and Robinette voluntarily consented to the
search.

The justices originally ruled the evidence was inadmissible in a 43 vote
in 1995. Pfeifer wrote that decision. It said, "Any attempt at consensual
interrogation must be preceded by the phrase `At this time, you are legally
free to go,' or by words of similar import."

The U.S. Supreme Court said having officers use "magic words" does not
change the situation and each case must be decided based on "the totality
of the circumstances."

Lt. John Born, spokesman for the patrol, said interdiction policies will
not be changed until legal advisers have reviewed the decision.