In State v. Deloach (Aug. 4, 2000), 2d Dist. No. 18071, 2000 Ohio App, three officers were on bicycles when they saw Deloach approach with a baggy in his hand. When they asked him "Hey, what you got?", Deloach ran to the side of a nearby building, while unsuccessfully attempting to throw the baggy in his hand over a fence into the neighboring yard. In affirming the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, the Court reasoned that: "Deloach's problem lies not in his flight but what it revealed. Officer Beall testified that he saw Deloach holding a bag of crack cocaine in his hand as he ran off, attempting to discard the bag as he did. That fact alone created probable cause to arrest Deloach independent of any defects in the detention that Officer Stringer had attempted. The officers were then authorized to seize the crack cocaine, not only incident to their arrest of Deloach on a possession charge but also because Deloach's actions clearly demonstrated that he had abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag and its contents. "We do not know what features of the bag that he saw Deloach carrying caused Officer Beall to conclude that it contained crack cocaine. He testified that Deloach 'was carrying a large bag of crack cocaine in his hand' and that 'it looked like crack cocaine in the bag.' He also stated that he was then ten to twelve feet away from Deloach. The trial court appears to have credited this testimony, which went unchallenged, to conclude that the officers had probable cause to arrest Deloach based on what they saw the bag contained. On this record, no other holding is reasonably possible." Deloach, at 2. The court concluded its opinion by noting that "the officers had probable cause to arrest Deloach before they seized the bag because of what they saw the bag held when it was in Deloach's hand." Id., at 3.