Bookmark this page on your mobile

QR Code image

What is this?

Daily Court Reporter - News Search of man walking near where gunshots heard was constitutional


Search of man walking near where gunshots heard was constitutional

Dan Trevas, Supreme Court of Ohio

A police search of a man walking and talking on his cell phone in an area where gunshots were fired no more than 60 seconds earlier was lawful, and the handgun obtained during the search can be used as evidence, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled recently.

The Supreme Court upheld a Franklin County Common Pleas Court’s decision denying Jaonte Hairston’s claim that the March 2015 search by Columbus police near Liberty Elementary School violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine wrote that the “cumulative facts” of the situation provided the required reasonable suspicion to stop and search Hairston.

Justices Sharon L. Kennedy, Judith L. French, and Patrick F. Fischer joined Justice DeWine’s opinion. Justice Michael P. Donnelly concurred in judgment only with a separate written opinion. Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor dissented with a written opinion. Justice Melody J. Stewart also dissented with a written opinion that the chief justice joined.

Shots Led to Search

Columbus police officer Samuel Moore and his partner were called to investigate a domestic dispute. As they were getting out of their cruiser around 9:20 p.m., they heard the sound of four to five gunshots. The officers drove about 30 to 60 seconds, covering about four-tenths of a mile, to an area where Liberty Elementary School and Independence High School are located.

At the intersection outside of the elementary school, they spotted Hairston crossing the street while talking on his cell phone. The officers got out of their car with weapons drawn and ordered Hairston to stop. They asked if he had heard gunshots. Hairston said yes, he had. Moore asked Hairston if he was carrying any weapons. Hairston said he had a gun and nodded to his jacket pocket. Moore patted down Hairston and retrieved the gun.

Hairston was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the police lacked the required reasonable suspicion to detain him. Moore was the only witness to testify at the suppression hearing, and he testified that he had patrolled that zone of the city for his entire six-year career. He said drug activity, assaults, robberies, and domestic violence frequently occurred in the area around the schools during the evening hours.

Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision regarding the standards for police to conduct an investigatory stop of a person suspected of criminal activity, the trial court concluded the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Hairston. Hairston appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court decision, noting the sound of gunfire only implied “someone, somewhere, had shot a gun.” The Tenth District ruled the police lacked “a particularized and objective basis” for stopping Hairston.

The Franklin County prosecuting attorney appealed the Tenth District’s decision, and the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Officer Had Grounds to Make Stop

The Court majority explained that Terry allows an officer to make a brief investigative stop “when the officer has a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent.” And when the officer is “justified in believing” the individual is armed and dangerous, the officer may conduct a limited search for concealed weapons.

Justice DeWine wrote that the determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on the totality of circumstances as “viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officer on the scene,” and that decision does not deal with “hard certainties, but with probabilities.”

The opinion stated that Moore personally heard the shots and they sounded close-by. The officer had personal experience that crime often occurred at night in the area where he stopped Hairston. The officer had made arrests in the school area at night for illegal weapons and other crimes.

“But the most important considerations here are that the stop occurred very close in time to the gunshots and Hairston was the only person in the area from which the shots emanated,” the opinion stated. “We conclude that these facts, taken together and viewed in relation to each other, rise to the level of reasonable suspicion.”

“Here, the officers did exactly what one would expect reasonable and prudent police officers to do in their situation,” the majority said. “Upon hearing gunshots, they proceeded immediately to the location they believed the shots to be coming from to investigate. Finding only Hairston in the area and knowing that criminal activity frequently occurred there, the officers were not required to ignore Hairston’s presence, nor was it necessary for them to attempt to speak to him without taking precautions for their own safety.”

Decision Erodes Constitutional Protection, Dissent Stated

In her dissenting opinion, Chief Justice O’Connor wrote the majority “erodes the constitutional standard established in Terry” and allows police to stop any person in a high crime area “without any specific and articulable facts pointing more directly to that particular person’s being engaged in criminal activity.”

The chief justice noted that Moore’s testimony differed from the arrest form he completed, which underscores his lack of specific information about where the shots came from. The dissent explained Terry requires that a search must be based on something more than an officer’s “hunches” about supposed criminal activity. The opinion also noted that Moore began the pat-down of Hairston before asking him whether he had a gun.

The opinion stated that a stop based, in part, on the recent sound of gunshots requires that an officer believed the shots were fired in the immediate vicinity of the person hearing the shots such that the shooter would not have had time to flee. The opinion noted that in other cases where searches based on the sound of gunshots were upheld, the shots were fired within a few blocks from where they were heard. In this case, the shots were nearly a half mile away and the officer believed they were coming from near the high school and not the elementary school where Hairston was walking.

“Officer Moore did not have a specific idea of where the shots came from, and he merely stopped the first person he encountered while driving in that direction,” the chief justice wrote.

The dissent added that even in cases where gunshots occurred very close by and a search was upheld, the arresting officers had additional evidence to implicate the persons they searched. While Hairston was the only person the officers saw, he was walking in a dense residential area where hundreds of people live. Nothing Hairston was doing distinguished him from anyone else present in the area at the time, the opinion stated.

The dissent stated that the shooter could have simply walked inside a house or hidden behind a house or some other obstruction, and the fact that Hairston was the only person walking down the street “does not meet the reasonable-suspicion standard.”

Majority, Trial Court Ignore Key Factor, Dissent Maintained

In her separate dissent, Justice Stewart wrote the majority and the trial court failed to determine the key factor of whether the police had a “particularized, not generalized,” suspicion that Hairston was engaged in criminal activity before he could be stopped.

Police officers stopped Hairston while he was walking across the street in an area “they guessed gunshots had been fired less than a minute earlier,” the dissent noted. The majority’s finding that the those facts gave police enough reasonable suspicion that Hairston fired the shots or was involved in some criminal activity to stop him “cannot plausibly be squared with decades of United States Supreme Court precedent explaining the particularity requirement,” the opinion stated.

The dissent noted that Moore did not testify that Hairston was the only person he saw, but that he did not “recall” seeing any other people in the area. Justice Stewart wrote it was an important distinction because the failure to find Hairston was the only person in the area “greatly erodes a reasonable basis for particularized suspicion in this case.”

The dissent noted that courts allow officers to draw on their own experiences and personalized training to suspect someone of criminal activity, but Moore “offered no insights into how his training or experience aided him in determining the origin of a sound from a distance of nearly a half mile away,” nor did it explain why “Hairston’s walking across the street talking on his phone should have been seen as particularly suspicious.

Concurrence Finds Proximity to Gunshot Important

In his concurring opinion, Justice Donnelly disagreed with the majority’s position that the time of night and the fact that it was a high-crime area were relevant, but agreed that a suspect’s proximity to the crime area at the time of the incident was relevant.

“Given how close Hairston was to the crime, in both time and place, I would hold that the trial court’s determination of reasonable suspicion was legally justified,” the concurrence stated.

Justice Donnelly wrote that this particular case was a “close call” and that a “perfectly reasonable finder of fact could have come to a different conclusion.” Although the Tenth District’s conclusion about the facts seemed reasonable, he noted that “an appellate court cannot usurp the fact-finding role of the trial court.”

The concurrence noted that the standards for Terry and the fact-finding role of the trial court are already well-established, and stated that “there is no new standard of law to be determined here.” Although Justice Donnelly agreed that the Tenth District decision was incorrect in this case, he concluded that the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling today was “quintessential error correction,” and that the better resolution would have been to dismiss the appeal as having been improvidently allowed.

2017-1505. State v. Hairston, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1622.

The opinion can be read online at:

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

About the Supreme Court of Ohio

The Supreme Court is established by Article IV, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution. Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution sets the size of the Court and outlines its jurisdiction. Article IV, Section 5 of the Constitution grants rule making and other authority to the Court.

The Supreme Court is the court of last resort in Ohio. Most of its cases are appeals from the 12 district courts of appeals. The Court may grant leave to appeal felony cases from the courts of appeals and may direct a court of appeals to certify its record in any civil or misdemeanor case that the Court finds to be "of public or great general interest."

The Supreme Court also has appellate jurisdiction in cases involving questions arising under the Ohio or United States Constitutions, cases originating in the courts of appeals, and cases in which there have been conflicting opinions on the same question from two or more courts of appeals. The Supreme Court hears all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed. These cases currently include both appeals from courts of appeals affirming imposition of the death penalty by a trial court and, for capital crimes committed on or after Jan. 1, 1995, appeals taken directly from the trial courts. Finally, the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to review of the actions of certain administrative agencies, including the Public Utilities Commission.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs. These include writs of habeas corpus (inquiring into the cause of an allegedly unlawful imprisonment or deprivation of custody), writs of mandamus (ordering a public official to perform a required act), writs of procedendo (compelling a lower court to proceed to judgment in a case), writs of prohibition (ordering a lower court to stop abusing or usurping judicial functions), and writs of quo warranto (issued against a person or corporation for usurpation, misuse, or abuse of public office or corporate office or franchise).

The Constitution grants the Supreme Court exclusive authority to regulate admission to the practice of law, the discipline of attorneys admitted to practice, and all other matters relating to the practice of law. In connection with this grant of authority, the Supreme Court has promulgated the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio. These rules address, among other things, admission to practice, attorney discipline, attorney registration, continuing legal education, and unauthorized practice of law.

The Constitution also gives the Supreme Court authority to prescribe rules governing practice and procedure in all courts of the state and to exercise general superintendence over all state courts. Procedural rules promulgated by the Supreme Court become effective unless both houses of the General Assembly adopt a concurrent resolution of disapproval. Rules of superintendence over state courts set minimum standards for court administration. Unlike procedural rules, rules of superintendence do not have to be submitted to the General Assembly to become effective.

In connection with all of the rules for which it has responsibility, the Supreme Court generally solicits public comment before adopting new rules or amendments in final form. The Court first publishes its rules and amendments in proposed form. These proposals appear in both the Ohio State Bar Association Reports and the Ohio Official Advance Sheets and indicate the period open for comment and the staff member to whom comments should be directed. The Court reviews all comments submitted before it decides whether to adopt or amend a rule.

Pursuant to the Constitution, the Chief Justice or a Justice designated by the Chief Justice is responsible for ruling on the disqualification of appellate and common pleas court judges. The procedure for obtaining review of a claim of disqualification against an appellate or common pleas judge is commenced by the filing of an affidavit of disqualification with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The Revised Code contains specific requirements governing the filing of affidavits of disqualification.

Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution sets the size of the Court at seven -- a Chief Justice and six Justices, who are elected to six-year terms on a nonpartisan ballot. Two Justices are chosen at the general election in even-numbered years. In the year when the Chief Justice runs, voters pick three members of the Court.

A person must be an attorney with at least six years experience in the practice of law to be elected or appointed to the Supreme Court. Appointments are made by the Governor for vacancies that may occur between elections.

Date Published: May 23, 2019


Supreme Court of Ohio


Convicted felon sentenced to 42 months in prison for illegal gun possession

DAYTON – Christopher Watson, 29, of Dayton, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 42 months in prison followed by three years of court supervision for illegally possessing a firearm.

Crafted in Cincinnati, Ohio: Brewmania announced for October

CINCINNATI, OHIO --- BREWMANIA, a brand new three-day event crafted in Cincinnati, Ohio will be a celebration of the Queen City’s craft beer industry and take place October 1-3, 2019. BREWMANIA will take place at various locations throughout Cincinnati as outlined and explained below, for a full list of participating locations please visit: Also, attendees of Brandemonium will be able to access Brewmania at no charge.

Students ‘appeal’ to justices at state moot court competition

Justices Patrick Fischer and Melody Stewart were among the panel of judges for latest state moot court championship won by Danville High School.

Fewer regulations for small Ohio wineries sought

A plan to free the owners of the state's smaller wineries from overburdensome regulation made its way to a committee in the Ohio House of Representatives recently.

Legislation would expand August sales tax holiday

Just as the current school year races to completion, lawmakers in the Ohio House of Representatives have taken up a measure intended to leave some money in the pockets of Ohio consumers when outfitting their kids for next school year.

1971 Columbus school incident led to landmark Supreme Court decision

The 1975 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Goss vs. Lopez, provided due process rights for students suspensions and expulsions from school.

Lessons from Brooklyn

E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

Search of man walking near where gunshots heard was constitutional

A police search of a man walking and talking on his cell phone in an area where gunshots were fired no more than 60 seconds earlier was lawful, and the handgun obtained during the search can be used as evidence, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled recently.

Sales Tax Law of 1935 changed how Ohio funds its schools

During the Great Depression, public schools in Ohio faced a financial crisis. Most schools received their funding through property taxes, according to Ohio History Connection.

Groundbreaking aviation technology set for testing in Ohio

The Ohio Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center and U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory plans to begin testing groundbreaking aviation technology at the Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, according to an announcement by Gov. Mike DeWine.

ODNR to launch new conservation teen advisory council

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) is seeking high school students to serve as founding members of the Conservation Teen Advisory Council (ConTAC), a new initiative to empower the youth voice. ConTAC is designed to become a statewide network of student-leaders working together to enhance ODNR’s youth outreach and program efforts.

Supreme Court of Ohio considers declaring an end to “free bite” rule for dogs

The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 8th, heard four oral arguments, including one from the city of Cincinnati disputing an interpretation of state law that contends a dog must be designated “dangerous” through a formal process before a local government can seek restitution from a dog owner whose dog has bitten or injured a person or another animal.

ODNR provides more than $297,500 to help support Ohio rural fire departments

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Forestry strives to support Ohio’s rural fire departments and the communities they serve. Through the Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) grant program, the Division of Forestry recently approved grant funding for 52 projects totaling $297,520 for fire departments in rural parts of eastern and southern Ohio. The protection of life, property and forest resources provided by cooperating fire departments is important to all Ohioans.

Refund checks coming to tech support scam victims

A dozen Ohioans who fell victim to a widespread tech support scam will soon receive refunds totaling more than $5,000, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and the Federal Trade Commission announced recently.

DeWine, Husted announce InnovateOhio platform

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and Lt. Governor Jon Husted today announced the launch of the InnovateOhio Platform, which will coordinate data and resources across state government to improve the way Ohio tackles our most challenging problems. It will also streamline technology service across agencies to give Ohio citizens and businesses a better experience when interacting with state government.

Judge cannot block Cleveland Fire Department’s shift-change order

The Ohio Supreme Court recently lifted a hold placed by a Cuyahoga County judge on the Cleveland Fire Department’s move to change the starting time of its 24-hour shifts.

ODNR Reminds Ohioans to leave young wildlife in the wild

The spring season has arrived, offering many opportunities for Ohioans to help protect young wildlife. Each year, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife offers this simple advice: enjoy wildlife from a distance and leave young animals alone. Wild animals are born to live their lives in the wild, and sometimes good intentions can hurt their chances of survival.

Glass company owner pleads guilty to not paying employment taxes

Also admitted filing false tax returns and failing to file returns

Second version of Ohio Constitution has changed little since its creation

Minus some Progressive reforms added in the early 20th century, the second iteration of the Ohio Constitution remains the fundamental law today.

Current city official, former Dayton City Commissioner among those charged with fraud

DAYTON – A federal grand jury here has returned indictments against a former Dayton city commissioner, a current city official and two Dayton businessmen, charging them with fraud and public corruption.