COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61299 ACCELERATED DOCKET : STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : and -vs- : : OPINION : TONYA WILLIAMS : : PER CURIAM Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OCTOBER 24, 1991 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-240528 JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: FEDELE DESANTIS HYMAN, FRIEDMAN Assistant County Prosecutor Public Defender 8th Floor, Justice Center 1276 West 3rd Street 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 4411 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PER CURIAM: This appeal was filed, briefed and argued as an accelerated appeal pursuant to Local R. 25 of this court. Appellee Tonya Williams was charged with possession of cocaine in less than the bulk amount in violation of R.C. 2925.11 and possession of a criminal tool, a crack pipe, in violation of R.C. 2913.24. She moved for the suppression of the evidence that was seized, and the trial court granted her motion. The State of Ohio, appellant, timely appeals the trial court's holding that the evidence was illegally seized and argues that the appellee lacked standing to challenge the seizure; that the evidence seized was abandoned; and that the totality of the circumstances demonstrate that the stop, frisk, and investigative detention were constitutionally permitted. In compliance with App. R. 11.1, it is this court's holding that the investigative stop, in this case, was valid under Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1; that the items seized from the police zone car were abandoned; and that the appellee lacks standing to challenge the legality of the seizure. The decision of the trial court is reversed and remanded. On June 8, 1989, at approximately 7:30 a.m., two Cleveland Police Officers were on basic patrol in the area of 7030 Lexing- ton Avenue. The officers were patrolling the area in response to complaints of drug sales in the playground area of a nearby church and an alley adjacent to 7030 Lexington. -3- Officer Lewis was quite familiar with the area. He testified that he had worked this specific area for the last five years. He testified that it was a high crime area with a lot of shootings. Furthermore, Officer Lewis had personally made ten to fifteen felony drug arrests at the specific address of 7030 Lexington Avenue. On one occasion, Officer Lewis was involved in the execution of a search warrant at that location during which a rock of cocaine the size of a pool ball, was confiscated. In addition, the officers were privy to a citizen complaint that individuals were loitering at 7030 Lexington Avenue. On the morning of June 8, 1989, the officers observed several individuals standing in front of the store located at 7030 Lexington. The appellant was standing in front of the store, in close proximity to the other people. Officer Lewis recognized one of the people as a known drug dealer, who Lewis had arrested on more than one occasion. Upon seeing the zone car, the individuals ran. The officers caught three of the five persons, the appellee, and two males, one of whom was the drug dealer recognized by Officer Lewis. The two male suspects were frisked for weapons and no objects, weapons, or personal articles were discovered. Appellee, because of her sex, was not completely searched. The officers requested that she empty her jeans pockets; she was wearing blue jeans with pockets and a shirt with a pocket. A book of matches was discovered with the word "Bonanza" printed on the front. Because of the location of the shirt pocket, it was -4- not searched. Officer Lewis returned the "Bonanza" matches to the appellee. The officers then searched the back seat area of the zone car prior to placing all three persons in the rear. This was done to make sure no contraband was present from previous arrests. The officers informed the three suspects that the rear of the zone car was searched and nothing found. The suspects were then placed in the back seat of the zone car without handcuffs. After running warrant checks on all three people, the officers let the appellee and one other person out of the zone car. However, when the zone car was searched the subsequent time, the officers discovered a book of matches with "Bonanza" printed on them and a crack pipe. The items were found under the front seat directly in front of where appellee was sitting. The appellee was then arrested. Appellant assigned the two following errors that will be discussed together: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE WHERE THE DEFENDANT- APPELLEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO CONTEST THE LEGALITY OF A SEARCH, AND WHERE THE STATE OF OHIO PRESENTED EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE SUPPRESSED CRACK PIPE AND MATCH BOOK WERE ABANDONED BY THE DEFENDANT- APPELLEE, THEREBY SHOWING THAT NO SEARCH HAD OCCURRED IN VIOLATION OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE WHERE THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DEMONSTRATE THAT THE STOP, FRISK AND INVESTIGATIVE DETENTION OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE WAS -5- ENTIRELY REASONABLE AND CONSISTENT WITH FOURTH AMENDMENT PRINCIPLES. For purposes of orderly discussion, the second assignment of error will be discussed first. If a police officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person is engaged in criminal activity, the officer may stop the person for investigative questioning and conduct a limited search for weapons. Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1. A police officer may make a limited search of an individual's person during an investigative stop in order to ensure that the person is not carrying any weapons. State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 177. Where a police officer during an investigative stop, has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer may initiate a protective search for the safety of himself and others. Id. The issue in this case is whether there was probable cause to stop and investigate appellee. It must be stated at the outset that this is not a case where the sole reason offered for the stop is the general statement "high drug area." Had this been the only factor, the trial court's ruling would have been proper. State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St. 3d 86. In State v. Andrews the Ohio Supreme Court held that an area's reputation for criminal activity is an articulable fact which is a part of the totality of the circumstance surrounding a stop to investigate -6- suspicious behavior. Clearly, under the Andrews' standard, it is not the sole factor. Nevertheless, an analysis of the totality of the circum- stances requires the conclusion that there were reasonable and articulable facts for the officers to conclude that these individuals were engaged in criminal activity. Officer Lewis had patrolled this specific area for five years prior to the arrest. He further testified that there had been a number of shootings in the area. He had personally made between ten and fifteen felony drug arrests at this specific address, 7030 Lexington Avenue. During one such arrest, a rock of cocaine the size of a "pool ball" was confiscated. There was an ongoing complaint from a business owner of loitering at 7030 Lexington Avenue. Officer Lewis also had previously arrested one of the individuals for drug violations, on more than one occasion. According to his testimony, he was a known drug dealer. Finally, Officer Lewis testified that when he and his partner approached the individuals, they ran. Under the Andrews' standard, flight coupled with other factors, similar to the particular factors contained herein, is a part of the totality of the circumstances surrounding a stop to investigate suspicious behavior. These are all specific facts that would give a police officer, with Officer Lewis' knowledge of the area and his knowledge of one of the suspects, a reasonable and articulable suspicion that these persons were engaged in criminal activity. -7- Consequently, the limited search of the appellee was a valid Terry search. Since the other individuals were without any personal objects when they were searched, it was reasonable for the officers to conclude for probable cause purposes that appellee abandoned the crack pipe. The police may seize abandoned property without probable cause and without a warrant. If a person has voluntarily abandoned property, she has no standing to complain of its seizure. U.S. v. Jackson (9th Cir., 1976), 544 F. 2d 407. Judgment reversed and remanded. -8- This cause is reversed and remanded. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee their costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, PRESIDING J. LEO SPELLACY, JUDGE PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .