[Cite as State v. Rowley,
2022-Ohio-997.]
.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
CLINTON COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellant, : CASE NO. CA2021-08-027
: OPINION
- vs - 3/28/2022
:
RONALD LEE ROWLEY, :
Appellee. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CRI20-500-139
Andrew T. McCoy, Clinton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Melvin Planas, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
Amanda Waechter, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.
PIPER, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the state of Ohio, appeals a decision of the Clinton County Court
of Common Pleas granting the motion to suppress of appellee, Ronald Rowley.
{¶ 2} On November 19, 2020, Sergeant Brian Noah and Officer Kristen Jeffers were
dispatched to 126 South Broadway to investigate a report of domestic violence involving a
man and a woman. The location is a two-story building that contains two apartments on
the second floor separated by a short landing.
Clinton CA2021-08-027
{¶ 3} When the officers arrived, they entered a narrow corridor and climbed the
stairs. When they reached the landing, the officers observed a large hole in the dry wall
roughly the size of a human torso. The officers also observed that Rowley's door was
severely damaged. According to Sergeant Noah, the door was so damaged that it could
not be latched or fully closed and therefore sat slightly ajar. The officers knocked on the
door several times. Rowley came to the door but did not open it wider. He instead applied
pressure to the door to close it as much as possible. Sergeant Noah testified that he then
placed his hand on the door and applied sufficient pressure on the door to keep it from
closing further to communicate with Rowley.
{¶ 4} Sergeant Noah identified himself as a police officer and stated the reason for
his presence. Rowley told Sergeant Noah to "hold on" and claimed to be getting dressed;
however, Sergeant Noah stated that Rowley was clearly not getting dressed because there
was no other movement behind the door. At some point, Rowley released pressure on the
door and the door slightly opened more. Sergeant Noah then observed fresh blood droplets
on the floor. Sergeant Noah testified that Rowley had a bloody nose and had blood on his
face. He then noticed that the apartment was "disheveled" with strewn furniture and
overturned plants. After observing this situation, Sergeant Noah entered the apartment to
locate the female involved in the disturbance and to determine her status. Before locating
the female, however, Sergeant Noah observed items in plain view that were indicative of
drug use, i.e., pills, torn baggies, and hypodermic syringes. The officers then located the
female but determined that she did not appear to have any significant injuries.
{¶ 5} Rowley was placed under arrest and a search incident to arrest revealed that
he was in possession of additional narcotics and approximately $500 in cash. Rowley was
then removed from the premises and taken to jail. Sergeant Noah contacted his chief and
applied for a search warrant for the apartment. In an affidavit in support of the search
-2-
Clinton CA2021-08-027
warrant, Officer Jeffers stated that Sergeant Noah "pushed the door open." The search
warrant was approved, and a subsequent inventory was filed indicating the discovery of
more drugs, cash, and drug paraphernalia.
{¶ 6} On February 10, 2021, Rowley was indicted for aggravated trafficking in
drugs, aggravated possession of drugs, and possession of drug instruments. Rowley pled
not guilty and later filed a motion to suppress alleging that the officers had engaged in an
unconstitutional search and seizure. Claiming the initial entry was unlawful, Rowley argued
that all evidence should be suppressed, including the evidence obtained following the
issuance of the search warrant. The trial court held hearings on the motion to suppress on
May 17, 2021, and July 26, 2021.
{¶ 7} During the hearings, Sergeant Noah was questioned specifically about Officer
Jeffers' affidavit in support of a search warrant. Sergeant Noah denied pushing the door
open and explained that Rowley himself either opened the door, or the damaged door
released on its own when Rowley ceased applying pressure to it. When the door opened,
Sergeant Noah testified that he observed blood on the floor, blood on Rowley, and a chaotic
scene that necessitated his entry into Rowley's apartment to search for a victim and
determine that individual's condition. Despite the testimony, in its post-hearing brief, the
state agreed that Sergeant Noah "pushed the door open."
{¶ 8} On August 2, 2021, the trial court initially denied Rowley's motion to suppress
finding that Rowley had not established standing to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge.
The next day Rowley filed a motion requesting the trial court reconsider its ruling on the
motion to suppress. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to reconsider where
the state stipulated that Rowley was the tenant. On August 11, 2021, the trial court granted
the motion to reconsider after finding that the entry into Rowley's apartment was not justified
by exigent circumstances. The state appeals the decision of the trial court, raising one
-3-
Clinton CA2021-08-027
assignment of error:
{¶ 9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT FINDING THAT EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED TO JUSTIFY A LEGAL WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO THE
DEFENDANT'S APARTMENT.
{¶ 10} The state argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress.
In so doing, the state maintains that the entry into Rowley's apartment was justified based
on exigent circumstances.
Standard of Review
{¶ 11} Appellate review of a ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed
question of law and fact. State v. Shaibi, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2020-07-038, 2021-
Ohio-1352, ¶ 24. The trial court, as the trier of fact, is in the best position to weigh the
evidence to resolve factual questions and evaluate witness credibility. State v.
Brandenburg, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2020-09-055, 2021-Ohio-2875, ¶ 12. Therefore,
when reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, a reviewing court is bound to accept the
trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. State v.
Fletcher, 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2016-08-016,
2017-Ohio-1006, ¶ 30. "An appellate court,
however, independently reviews the trial court's legal conclusions based on those facts and
determines, without deference to the trial court's decision, whether as a matter of law, the
facts satisfy the appropriate legal standard." Brandenburg at ¶ 12.
Fourth Amendment and Exigent Circumstances Doctrine
{¶ 12} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees an
individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Pettiford,
12th Dist. Fayette No. CA2017-05-010, 2018-Ohio-1015, ¶ 10. A warrantless search is per
se unreasonable unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
State v. Thomas, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-185,
2015-Ohio-1778, ¶ 13.
-4-
Clinton CA2021-08-027
{¶ 13} An exception to the warrant requirement is when officers encounter exigent
circumstances. State v. Wilson, 12th Dist. Clinton No. CA2006-03-008, 2007-Ohio-353, ¶
20. "The Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries
into a home when the officers reasonably believe a person within the home is in immediate
need of aid or there is a need to protect or preserve life or to avoid serious injury." Id. at ¶
21.
{¶ 14} "The exigent circumstances doctrine requires probable cause plus exigent
circumstances to effectuate a warrantless entry of [a] home." Fletcher, 2017-Ohio-1006 at
¶ 34; Wilson at ¶ 23. Probable cause is not black and white, rather it is a practical, non-
technical concept that turns on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual
circumstances. State v. Perez,
124 Ohio St.3d 122,
2009-Ohio-6179, ¶ 73. In determining
whether probable cause exists, a court must consider the "totality of the circumstances."
State v. Norman, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2014-02-033,
2014-Ohio-5084, ¶ 48. Probable
cause is viewed with an objective standard.
Fletcher at ¶ 34.
{¶ 15} A warrantless entry must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which
justify its initiation as well as the reasonableness of the belief that it was necessary to
investigate an emergency to protect life or prevent serious injury. State v. Applegate, 68
Ohio St.3d 348, 349-350 (1994); State v. Dunn,
131 Ohio St.3d 325,
2012-Ohio-1008, ¶ 21-
22 (acknowledging exceptions to the Fourth Amendment in order to render aid). In
evaluating the circumstances, we are reminded:
"[t]he business of policemen and firemen is to act, not to
speculate or meditate on whether the report is correct. People
could well die in emergencies if police tried to act with the calm
deliberation of the judicial process."
Id., quoting Wayne v. United States,
318 F.2d 205, 212 (D.C. Cir. 1963).
Trial Court
-5-
Clinton CA2021-08-027
{¶ 16} The trial court granted Rowley's motion to suppress after concluding that there
were no exigent circumstances to permit entry into the apartment. The trial court agreed
that this case did involve an investigation concerning a crime of violence, but determined
that there were no other facts to justify the intrusion. Rather than focusing on the factors
present the trial court instead focused on additional factors that were not present at the
time:
This case does involve an investigation for a crime of violence
as an exigent circumstance but nothing else. Defendant
acknowledged the presence of Sgt Noah at the door and
responded he was getting dressed. There is no indication
defendant was armed. There is nothing suggesting defendant
was the suspect in the alleged domestic violence incident
presented. There is nothing suggesting defendant was planning
to exit the apartment. There is nothing explaining why the officer
did not just wait for the defendant to get dressed prior to his
unilateral decision to enter the apartment.
The trial court did not factor into its analysis the serious nature of the call the officers were
dispatched upon, the torso-sized hole in the drywall outside Rowley's apartment, the nature
and extent of damage to the door, or Rowley's misleading representations that he was
getting dressed. These facts corroborate the emergency nature of the call to which
Sergeant Noah and Officer Jeffers were dispatched. Additionally, when Rowley released
his pressure in attempting to hold the broken door closed, Sergeant Noah observed blood
droplets and glimpsed the apartment's significantly disrupted interior.
Appeal
{¶ 17} On appeal, the state argues that it sufficiently proved there were exigent
circumstances to justify a warrantless entry into Rowley's apartment citing a comparable
incident in which officers were permitted to enter a residence where there was a reasonable
belief that it was necessary to investigate an emergency threatening life or serious injury.
State v. Applegate, 68 Ohio St.3d 348 (1994). In that case, the supreme court upheld a
-6-
Clinton CA2021-08-027
warrantless entry into a residence by police officers who, while responding to a report of
domestic violence, heard sounds coming from inside a residence indicative of violence. Id.
at 349-350.
{¶ 18} Rowley attempts to distinguish his case from Applegate in which there the
officers heard sounds indicative of violence; sounds not present in the instant matter.
However, equally significant were Sergeant Noah's observations also indicative of violence.
The duty to protect persons and preserve the peace is not just a moral obligation but one
grounded in the law. See R.C. 109.71(A)(1). Also relevant, Chief Justice Warren Burger
has noted "'[t]he policeman on the beat, or in the patrol car, makes more decisions and
exercises broader discretion affecting the daily lives of people, every day and to a greater
extent, in many respects, than a judge will ordinarily exercise in a week.'" Dunn, 2012-
Ohio-1008 at ¶ 25, quoting Dimino, Police Paternalism: Community Caretaking, Assistance
Searches, and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness, 66 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 1485, 1527
(2009).
Conclusion
{¶ 19} Following review, we agree with the state that exigent circumstances were
present in the case herein. As noted, the officers were responding to an active emergency
call of domestic violence. When they arrived, they observed conditions consistent with a
physical altercation. There was a large torso-sized hole in the hallway along with obvious
damage to Rowley's door which essentially rendered the door non-functional. When the
officers knocked on the door and announced their presence, they were met with resistance
as Rowley attempted to close his broken door as much as possible. Sergeant Noah testified
that when the door opened, he observed fresh blood droplets on the floor and noticed the
apartment was in significant disarray with overturned furniture and plants. As stated by
Sergeant Noah,
-7-
Clinton CA2021-08-027
[SERGEANT NOAH]: … [T]he door came open. I can't say
positively that he completely pulled it open. I'm assuming that
he did. But at that point, directly in front of me, I could see the
blood on the floor that was directly in front of the door. I could
see the blood droplets on the door or the floor. He had the blood
on his face. The apartment was in disarray. That plant right
there was directly across from the door. It was overturned.
THE COURT: Okay. You could see that from the landing?
[SERGEANT NOAH]: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Before you entered?
[SERGEANT NOAH]: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you saw some other hole outside - -
[SERGEANT NOAH]: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: - - from the landing before you entered?
[SERGEANT NOAH]: Yes, sir.
Based on these circumstances, Sergeant Noah entered the apartment to make sure that
the alleged victim was present and to determine her condition. However, before locating
her, Sergeant Noah observed pills, torn baggies consistent with drug use, as well as a
hypodermic syringe.
{¶ 20} Based upon these facts, we conclude that the officers' warrantless entry was
not only permissible, it was necessary. The officers had probable cause to believe that
domestic violence recently occurred before they entered the apartment to investigate if
anyone needed medical assistance. Accordingly, we find exigent circumstances justified
the warrantless entry into Rowley's apartment. The state's sole assignment of error is
sustained.
{¶ 21} Judgment reversed and remanded.
S. POWELL and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
-8-
