## Facts

- A deputy sheriff stopped Robert D. Robinette for speeding (69 mph in a 45‑mph construction zone) on Interstate 70 in Montgomery County, Ohio.
- Before approaching the vehicle, the deputy had decided to issue only a verbal warning.
- After checking Robinette’s license and finding no violations, the deputy returned the license and informed Robinette he would receive only a warning.
- Without any meaningful break in the encounter, the deputy had Robinette stand at the rear of the car, asked whether he had drugs, weapons, or contraband, and requested consent to search the vehicle.
- Robinette hesitated but consented; the search revealed marijuana and a pill later identified as MDMA.
- Robinette testified he did not believe he could refuse the search.
- The trial court denied suppression and Robinette was convicted; the Ohio Supreme Court initially required officers to tell motorists they were “free to go,” but the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that federal bright-line rule and remanded.
- On remand, the Ohio Supreme Court analyzed the stop under Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

## Issues

1. Under Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, whether continuing to detain a motorist after the traffic-stop purpose has ended, for unrelated questioning and a search request, is an unlawful seizure absent articulable suspicion of other illegal activity.
2. If the continued detention is unlawful, whether the state proved that the motorist’s consent to search was voluntary and an independent act of free will under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court held that extending a traffic stop to pursue a vehicle search, when unrelated to the original stop and unsupported by articulable suspicion, constitutes an illegal seizure under the Ohio Constitution.
- The court held that voluntariness of consent in this setting is governed by the totality of the circumstances under Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
- The court further held that, after unlawful detention, consent is valid only if the totality of circumstances clearly shows a reasonable person would believe they were free to refuse further questions and could leave.
- Applying these standards, the court concluded Robinette was unlawfully detained and the state failed to show his consent sufficiently purged the taint of that illegality.
- The court reaffirmed suppression of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A traffic stop may not be extended beyond its original purpose to conduct unrelated questioning or seek a search unless supported by objective, articulable facts creating suspicion of other illegal activity; otherwise the extension is an illegal seizure under Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
- Under the Ohio Constitution, the totality-of-the-circumstances test governs whether consent to search is voluntary when it follows an unlawful detention.
- After unlawful detention, consent must be an independent act of free will; the circumstances must clearly demonstrate that a reasonable person would believe they could refuse further questioning and could in fact leave.
- Ohio courts may interpret Section 14, Article I to provide greater search-and-seizure protections than the federal Fourth Amendment baseline.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court suppressed the contraband because the deputy prolonged the traffic stop without articulable suspicion and the state did not prove that Robinette’s ensuing consent was a sufficiently free and independent choice under Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.


State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St. 3d 234, 685 N.E.2d 762 (Ohio 1997)