City of Cleveland v. Benjamin S. Oles

The Supreme Court of Ohio presents: Under Advisement, Ohio Supreme Court Cases on Demand

Download a PDF of the Student Resource Guide.

In the Case of: City of Cleveland v. Benjamin S. Oles, Case nos. 2016-0172 and 2016-0282.

Benjamin Oles was placed in the front seat of a cruiser after being pulled over by an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper. While seated in the cruiser’s front seat, Oles admitted to consuming four alcoholic drinks at a wedding he had just left. The trooper arrested Oles after he failed a field sobriety test. However, at no point was Oles read his Miranda rights. The Ohio Supreme Court is asked to decide whether a law enforcement officer is required to provide Miranda warnings to a suspect removed from a vehicle and placed in the front seat of a police vehicle for questioning.

INTRODUCTION

The title of this case series, "Under Advisement," refers to reserving judgement until the justices can give careful consideration of all the information presented, as well as applicable caselaw, statutes, and the U.S. and Ohio constitutions.

The courts oversee and administer the law. They resolve disputes under the law and strive to apply the law in a fair and impartial manner. As in other states, Ohio is served by separate state and federal court systems organized into trial courts, intermediate courts of appeals, and a Supreme Court in each system. State courts primarily deal with cases arising under state law, and federal courts primarily deal with cases arising under federal law.

Ohio Courts of Appeals

The goal of every judicial system is to achieve complete and equal justice with every trial, but trial courts sometimes make mistakes or parties may disagree about the outcome of a particular case. This is why the courts of appeals were established. Ohio’s courts of appeals review questions brought from common pleas courts, municipal courts, and county courts.

Only a final judgment or order can be appealed, and appeals generally must be on questions of law and not the facts of a case. Appeals court judges generally do not hear new testimony. They review transcripts from the lower court’s hearings to determine if the law was interpreted and applied correctly. The party appealing the lower court’s decision is the appellant, and files a written argument explaining why the trial court erred. The party that won the case in the trial court is the appellee, and also may file a written brief, but is not required to do so. The court then may hold oral arguments, at which time the judges can ask questions about the case before making a decision. Ohio’s appeals court system is divided into 12 districts.

The number of judges in each district varies based on population, but each district has a minimum of four appellate judges. A panel of three of the district’s judges hear cases challenging decisions made by a lower trial court located within its district. Although many cases end with a decision by a district court of appeals, such courts are not the last resort; rather they are an intermediate step from the trial courts to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

To qualify for election, court of appeals judges must be licensed attorneys with at least six years’ experience. Once elected, they serve six-year terms.

The Supreme Court of Ohio

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s main purpose is to serve as a court of appeals and Ohio’s court of last resort. The Court is empowered to review final judgments and orders of lower courts; to affirm, reverse, remand (send back to a lower court), or modify judgments. Appeals to the Supreme Court generally are from the 12 district courts of appeals, rather than from the trial courts. The Court is required to hear some types of cases (cases involving the death penalty, some appeals from state agencies, cases involving state constitutional issues, and others), but most of its jurisdiction is discretionary and it selects cases of great importance or public interest to resolve.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has original (trial) jurisdiction for certain special remedies that permit a person to file an action in the Supreme Court. These extraordinary remedies include writs of habeas corpus (involving the release of persons allegedly unlawfully imprisoned or committed), writs of mandamus and procedendo (ordering a public official to do a required act), writs of prohibition (ordering a lower court to cease an unlawful act), and writs of quo warranto (against a person or corporation for usurpation, misuse, or abuse of public office or corporate office or franchise).

The Supreme Court of Ohio also has other important duties. These duties include prescribing rules of procedure for and providing general oversight of all lower courts, and overseeing the practice of law by attorneys.

The Supreme Court of Ohio consists of a chief justice and six justices. To qualify for election, candidates must be licensed attorneys with at least six years’ experience. Once elected, they serve six-year terms. The Supreme Court of Ohio is located in downtown Columbus.

OHIO JUDICIAL STRUCTURE

SUPREME COURT
CHIEF JUSTICE AND SIX JUSTICES

Court of last resort on state constitutional questions, and questions of public or great general interest; appeals from the Public Utilities Commission, all death sentences; original jurisdiction in select cases.

COURT OF APPEALS
TWELVE DISTRICTS, THREE-JUDGE PANELS

Appellate review of judgments of common pleas, municipal, and county courts; appeals from Board of Tax Appeals; original jurisdiction in select cases.

MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY COURTS

Misdemeanor offenses; traffic cases; civil actions up to $15,000.

COURT OF CLAIMS
JUDGES ASSIGNED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE

All suits against the state for personal injury, property damage, contract, and wrongful death; compensation for victims of crime. Three-judge panels upon request.

MAYOR'S COURTS

Not courts of record. Violations of local ordinances and state traffic laws. Matters can be reheard in municipal or county courts.

Glossary of Legal Terms

Admissible: Allowed to be considered as evidence by a judge or jury.

Amicus curiae: Latin, meaning “friend of the court.” A person or group that is not a party in a case, but who asks a court or is requested by a court to file a brief because of a special interest in the subject of the case.

Appeal: A request made by a party that has lost on one or more issues for a higher court to review the decision for correctness.

Appellant: The party who appeals a court’s decision and seeks to have the decision overturned.

Appellee: The party who opposes an appeal and seeks to have an earlier court decision affirmed.

Arrest: To keep a person in lawful custody. A warrant, crime, or statute can authorize this.

Brief: A written statement submitted to a court that explains legal and factual positions.

Bright-Line rule: A legal rule that resolves issues simply and straightforwardly.

Capital offense: A crime punishable by death.

Certified conflict: When two or more courts of appeals offer conflicting opinions on the same issue.

Custodial interrogation (as defined in Miranda): Questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

Defendant: In a civil case, someone against whom a lawsuit is filed. In a criminal case, someone accused of a crime.

Due process: A party’s right to notice and to be heard. In criminal law, the constitutional guarantee that a defendant will receive a fair and impartial trial.

Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents, according to specific court rules, and used to prove a case to the judge or jury.

Grand jury: A group of citizens called for jury service to listen to evidence of criminal allegations presented by prosecutors to determine whether there is probable cause to believe someone has committed a crime.

Inadmissible: Not able to be allowed or considered in a legal case.

Indictment: The grand jury’s formal statement that a person is alleged to have committed a specific crime or crimes.

Justice: One of the seven members of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Miranda warnings: Statements that must be made before the police question a suspect in custody. These statements notify a suspect of the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have an attorney appointed if a suspect cannot afford one. Derived from the U.S. Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966).

Municipal court: Trial court created by the Ohio General Assembly that has the authority to conduct preliminary hearings in felony cases and has jurisdiction over traffic and non-traffic misdemeanors.

Opinion: A judge’s written explanation of the decision of the court in a case.

Oral argument: An opportunity for lawyers to argue their positions and answer questions from the judges or justices who will decide the case being appealed.

Party: In court proceedings, one who files a civil or criminal case, one against whom a case is filed, or one with a direct interest in a case.

Precedent: A decision in an earlier case – with facts and legal issues similar to a dispute currently before a court – that should be followed unless there is good reason to depart from the earlier ruling.

Presentment: An informal statement in writing, by the grand jury, representing to the court that a public offense has been committed which is triable in the county, and that there is reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual named or described therein has committed it.

Prosecutor: One who represents the government in cases against criminal defendants.

Suppression of evidence: Court ruling where evidence is excluded from the trial because it was obtained illegally.

Terry stop: In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity, but short of probable cause to arrest.

Trial: A formal court proceeding in which a judge or a jury decides disputed facts and determines guilt or liability based upon the evidence presented.

Witness: A person called on during a trial to give testimony before the judge or jury.

• In the cruiser’s front seat, the trooper asked Oles how much alcohol he consumed that evening.
• Oles said he had four mixed drinks. Oles was asked by the trooper to perform field sobriety tests and failed.
• The trooper arrested Oles, placed him in the back seat of the patrol car, and cited him for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (OVI) and for a marked-lanes violation.
• At no time was Oles provided Miranda warnings while seated in the front seat of the cruiser.
• The Miranda warnings are statements that must be made before police question a suspect in custody that notify the suspect of the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney during questioning, and the right to have an attorney appointed if the suspect cannot afford one.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

Driver Challenges Charges

Charges against Oles are filed in Cleveland Municipal Court.

• Oles wants to suppress, or keep the trial court from considering, the evidence from the stop, including his statements to police about drinking and the results of the sobriety tests.
• A “motion to suppress evidence” is a formal request made to the court to exclude certain evidence at a criminal trial because the evidence was obtained illegally.
• Oles argues that he wasn’t given the Miranda warnings. Therefore, he argues that his statements shouldn’t be allowed in court because they violated his rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
• The trial court suppresses the evidence.

Prosecutors Appeal Decision

Parties that oppose a key decision by the trial court can appeal the decision to a higher court before any further action is taken.

• Ohio has 12 district courts of appeals that review and consider arguments in cases from trial courts in their region of the state.
• Prosecutors from the City of Cleveland appeal to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, located in Cleveland.
• The Eighth District upholds the trial court’s ruling. The prosecutors can proceed in municipal court with their case against Oles. However, they cannot use his statements to law enforcement or the results of his sobriety tests.

Conflict Among Appellate Courts

The Eighth District notifies the Ohio Supreme Court that its decision conflicts with cases from other Ohio courts of appeals.

• According to Article IV, Section 3 of the Ohio Constitution, “Whenever the judges of a court of appeals find that a judgment upon which they have agreed is in conflict with a judgment pronounced upon the same question by any other court of appeals of the state, the judges shall certify the record of the case to the supreme court for review and final determination.”
• Any interested party to the proceedings may file a notice of certified conflict in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then reviews and decides if there is a conflict.
• The Supreme Court’s decision then becomes the position for all lower courts in Ohio to follow.
• The Court accepts the city’s appeal for the following:
  • To decide the question of whether Miranda warnings must be given when a person is placed in the front seat of a police vehicle.
  • To decide how this issue applies to Oles.

Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence [sic] to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

• The amendment’s phrase “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
  himself” is known as the “self-incrimination clause.”

Ohio Constitution Explained

In a 2006 case, State v. Farris, the Ohio Supreme Court determined that Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution provides greater protection to criminal defendants than the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This applies to whether a court or jury can consider any physical evidence obtained as a result of a statement made by a person in custody who wasn’t read Miranda warnings. The Court found that such evidence cannot be used in court under Article I, Section 10.

This is different from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the admission of such evidence doesn’t violate the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause if the person voluntarily makes a statement.

Miranda Warnings Explained

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) created protections to secure the right against self-incrimination. This right is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies this right to state proceedings. A similar right is recognized in Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution. The Miranda decision explained that a “custodial interrogation” is “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”

Suspect Wasn't in Police Custody

• Custodial interrogation is the point when law enforcement must give Miranda warnings. The city argues that questioning a suspect in the front seat of a police vehicle is not a custodial interrogation.
• The city asks the Ohio Supreme Court to create a bright-line rule. The rule would define that being held in the front seat of a police vehicle for a short time during an investigation for OVI isn’t a custodial interrogation. A bright-line rule is a legal rule that simply and straightforwardly resolves issues.
• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a similar matter in another Ohio case: Berkemer v. McCarty (1984). The Court found that the person in Berkemer was only temporarily held during a traffic stop. It was decided that the person wasn’t in custody and didn’t need to be “Mirandized.”
• The city states that the trooper smelled alcohol when he first talked to Oles. He then moved Oles to his cruiser to determine the source of the alcohol odor and asked Oles a few questions. The city describes Oles’ stop as routine and not the same as an arrest. The stop included initial roadside questioning and field sobriety tests, which the city claims does not require reading Miranda warnings.

Other Cases Not as Similar

• The Eighth District used the Ohio Supreme Court’s State v. Farris decision to uphold the suppression of evidence from Oles’ traffic stop. The city disagrees with the Eighth District’s use of Farris, arguing it isn’t similar to Oles’ situation.
• The officer in Farris did a pat-down of the suspect, took his car keys, told him to sit in the police vehicle, and planned to search the suspect’s car. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in Farris that a reasonable person in Farris’ position would have considered himself to be in police custody. In that case, police needed to give Miranda warnings before questioning Farris.
• The city maintains that the Eighth District incorrectly extended the Farris ruling. The city agrees with rulings from the Eleventh and Seventh District Courts of Appeals. In those cases, the courts allowed evidence to be considered in court when obtained during traffic stops where Miranda rights weren’t read.
• The city also contends that the field sobriety test results should be presented in court because the trooper had reasonable suspicion to conduct the tests even before he questioned Oles in the cruiser.

Suspect Not Free to Leave When Questioned in Cruiser

• In Berkemer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled an ordinary traffic stop doesn’t automatically trigger the need for Miranda warnings. Oles responds that they must be read “as soon as a suspect’s freedom of action is curtailed to a ‘degree associated with formal arrest.’”
• As in Farris, Oles states he was stopped for a traffic violation, questioned, moved to the cruiser, and questioned further. A reasonable person who is ordered into a police vehicle and questioned would think he was being detained and wasn’t free to leave until the officer released him.

Officers Should Read Rights

• The decisions in conflict with the Eighth District – from the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh District Courts of Appeals – didn’t apply the reasonable person standard. Instead, the courts focused on certain facts in the Farris case (the suspect was patted down and handcuffed, and his keys were taken away).
• Oles notes that a police vehicle is an intimidating place by its nature. He agrees that handcuffs, pat-downs, seizure of car keys, and length of time make a detention more custodial-like. However, he notes that the lack of these actions doesn’t make it a non-custodial detention.
Oles states that the conversation with the trooper may have been different if he had been read his Miranda rights. He may not have told the trooper how much he drank that night and may not have agreed to the field sobriety tests.
• The trooper testified that the field tests were conducted after Oles answered the trooper’s questions in the cruiser. Because of this, Oles argues that his statements in the vehicle along with the field sobriety test results must be suppressed.

FRIEND-OF-THE-COURT BRIEFS

• Amicus curiae briefs were filed by organizations with a high level of interest in the outcome of the case.
  • The Supreme Court allows these groups to submit written briefs, but doesn’t generally allow them to present oral arguments.
  • In some cases, a party will agree to split oral argument time with one of the amicus groups supporting their position.
• Groups that filed amicus briefs in this case:
  • The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office jointly submitted an amicus brief supporting the city of Cleveland.
  • The Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed an amicus brief supporting Oles.

Attorneys Will Refer to Previous Federal and Ohio Court Decisions

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement informed the defendant of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation started, and the rights either were exercised or waived in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner.

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)
A person subjected to custodial interrogation is entitled to the benefit of the procedural safeguards enunciated in Miranda, regardless of the nature or severity of the offense of which he or she is suspected or for which he or she was arrested.

Ohio Supreme Court Decision:

State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519, 2006-Ohio-3255
A suspect was questioned about a crime while in police custody without being given Miranda warnings, and he admitted to unlawful conduct. The subsequent administration of a Miranda warning followed by the repetition of the prior question and admission did not “cure” the constitutional infirmity of the initial questioning. In this situation, the trooper took Farris’ car keys and ordered him to get into the front seat of the patrol car. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled further that, under the anti-selfincrimination provision of the Ohio Constitution, physical evidence obtained by police acting on either the suspect’s pre- or post-Miranda admission was not admissible at trial.

Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals Decision:

State v. Serafin, 2012-Ohio-1456
After pulling over a driver for speeding, a state trooper possessed reasonable suspicion of further wrongdoing, which justified the removal of the driver from the vehicle. The subsequent questioning of the driver in the front seat of the police cruiser did not constitute custodial interrogation that would require the Miranda warnings. The Eleventh District Court of Appeals denied the driver’s appeal to suppress from court the evidence obtained during the stop.

• This is one of the cases the Eighth District certifies is in conflict with its decision in Cleveland v. Oles.

What is a Terry stop?
In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity, but short of probable cause to arrest.

POLICE DON'T NEED TO READ RIGHTS TO QUESTION DRIVER IN PATROL VEHICLE FRONT SEAT

Case: Cleveland v. Oles, 152 Ohio St.3d 1, 2017-Ohio-5384

Full Opinion
sc.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2017/2017-ohio-5834.pdf

Placing a suspect in the front seat of a police cruiser during a traffic stop doesn’t alone determine if the officer needs to read the suspect his or her rights before questioning, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled.

In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court declined to draw a “bright-line rule” that requires an officer to provide Miranda warnings to a suspect who has been removed from a stopped vehicle and placed in a police car. Instead, the Court offered some guidelines that help determine if the type of stop requires the warnings.

Writing for the Court majority, Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor concluded the trooper only asked questions that are typical of a routine traffic stop where alcohol is suspected to be a factor. The stop wasn’t “the kind of interrogation — designed to pressure a suspect to confess to illegal conduct — that was of particular concern” to the U.S. Supreme Court when it decided Miranda, the opinion stated.

Oles Askes Court to Suppress Evidence

In 2014, a highway patrol trooper arrested Benjamin S. Oles. He was placed in the front seat of the cruiser. He was cited for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence and for a marked-lanes violation. The trooper did not read the Miranda warnings to Oles during the stop.

In Cleveland Municipal Court, Oles requested that the court suppress the evidence from the stop, including his statements to police about drinking and the sobriety test. The trial court agreed. Prosecutors from the City of Cleveland appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. After review, the court decided the statements could not be used in court, upholding the trial court’s ruling.

The Eighth District notified the Ohio Supreme Court that its decision conflicted with cases from other Ohio courts of appeals. It asked the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict.

Traffic Stop Questioning is Not necessarily Interrogation

Chief Justice O’Connor explained the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision created protections against self-incrimination. This decision was intended to protect suspects from coercive pressure by police during a custodial interrogation. The high court defined custodial interrogation as “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” When suspects in custody aren’t informed of their Miranda rights, the answers they give while in custody cannot be used as evidence in their trials.

The Ohio Supreme Court opinion discussed a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an Ohio case (Berkemer v. McCarty) that dealt with Miranda warnings. The Court found that Miranda warnings aren’t necessary when an officer pulls someone over and questions the driver by the side of the road. Although the stop limits the “freedom of action,” the stop alone doesn’t automatically mean the suspect is in custody.

The Ohio Supreme Court opinion noted that the Berkemer decision warned against trying to establish a bright-line rule that all traffic stops require Miranda warnings.

“Similarly, here, we decline to adopt the brightline rule that questioning a suspect in the front seat of a police vehicle during a traffic stop rises to the level of a custodial interrogation,” the Court stated. It noted in some, but not all, cases, the “totality of the circumstances” will show that a front-seat questioning can be a custodial interrogation that requires rights be read.

Oles Not in Custody

The Ohio Supreme Court applied Berkemer in its 2006 State v. Farris decision. In Farris, a trooper pulled over a driver for speeding and smelled marijuana in his car. The trooper took the driver out of his car, patted him down, took his keys, placed him in the front seat of the patrol car, and the trooper told the driver that the trooper was going to search the car. The Court found that questioning under these circumstances was a custodial interrogation that required the police to read the Miranda warnings to the suspect.

The Court suggested that questioning in the front seat of a police vehicle doesn’t require police to read the Miranda warnings to a suspect when:

1. The intrusion is minimal
2. The questioning and detention are brief
3. The interaction is non threatening or non intimidating

Unlike the driver in Farris, Oles wasn’t told his vehicle would be searched, was not patted down, and was allowed to keep his keys. The setting was in public view, the intrusion was minimal, and the questioning and detention were brief. Oles wasn’t handcuffed, and there was no indication the officer acted in a threatening or intimidating way.

Oles contended that Miranda warnings are required when “a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave.” However, the Court majority ruled the issue isn’t whether a person feels “free to leave,” but rather if the person feels “in custody.”

“If the inquiry were whether the driver felt free to leave, then every traffic stop could be considered a custodial interrogation because ‘few motorists would feel free either to disobey a directive to pull over or to leave the scene of a traffic stop without being told they might do so,’” the opinion stated.

The Court ruled that Oles’ constitutional rights were not violated. His case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings.

Justices Terrence O’Donnell, Sharon L. Kennedy, Judith L. French, Patrick F. Fischer, and R. Patrick DeWine joined the opinion.

Dissent Argues Oles Was in Custody

In his dissent, Justice William M. O’Neill maintained that any reasonable person stopped for a traffic violation and seated in a police car, front seat or back, handcuffed or not, would believe he or she is in custody, and not free to leave.

He noted that technology now gives officers access to a “world of information while seated inside” their vehicles.

“Every police vehicle is now a police station on wheels. Being directed to have a seat in a police vehicle is akin to being taken to the police station,” he wrote.

He noted that typical traffic stops begin with preliminary investigations where officers ask seated motorists a few questions. But once a driver is asked to step out of the car, a fundamental change occurs, he suggested.

“Once the suspect is instructed to enter the police vehicle, that person’s actions are now being controlled by the police officer. A reasonable person in the suspect’s position would feel that he or she is, at that point, under the control of the officer and in custody. The suspect’s freedom of action has been curtailed in a significant way,” he wrote.

The time has come for a rule that once an officer instructs a suspect into a police vehicle, the Miranda warnings are required, he concluded.