State v. Schultz

In State v. Schultz (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 130, 133, 23 Ohio B. 242, 491 N.E.2d 735, the defendant was present at a home during the execution of a search warrant. Though he was not a regular resident, the police knew that he had been at the residence since the previous evening. The police also had information that defendant was known to carry a weapon and that he had several times boarded planes to Florida while carrying large amounts of cash. When the officers entered the premises, they detained defendant and handcuffed him for "security reasons." During the search of the premises, officers found a coat and when asked, defendant replied that it was his. The officers searched the coat, discovered cocaine in the pocket, and arrested defendant. Defendant later sought to suppress the cocaine, arguing that his initial detention was unlawful because he was not a resident of the apartment. In rejecting his argument, the court concluded that the important police interests set forth in Summers, "combined with the 'articulable facts' that enabled the police to know of defendant's suspected connection to the drug traffic, tendency to carry weapons, and location for at least overnight in the apartment to be searched, justify the detention of defendant during the search." Schultz at 133.