Source: Columbus Dispatch Pubdate: Nov. 13, 1997 Contact: Contact: James Bradshaw, Dispatch Statehouse Reporter Website: http://www.dispatch.com/ 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.