COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 59763 STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION MELVIN ALFORD, : : Defendant-Appellant : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JANUARY 30, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. CR-238,925 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: Lindsay Jerry Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For defendant-appellant: Christopher D. Stanley 902 Rockefeller Building Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- NAHRA, J.: Melvin Alford, defendant-appellant, was indicted on the following three counts: trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine, and possession of criminal tools. Alford filed a motion to suppress concerning evidence seized from him by the police. At the suppression hearing, Leroy W. Gilbert, a detective with the Cleveland Police Department, testified that he and his partner drove to 2474 Morris Black Avenue in response to a complaint that drug trafficking was taking place. There, Det. Gilbert observed a parked 1986 Buick Skylark; Alford was sitting in the passenger's seat. The person next to Alford in the driver's seat got out of the vehicle and approached a group of people who were consuming drugs. Gilbert believed that a drug transaction was unfolding. Detective Gilbert approached the vehicle and observed marijuana in the car as well as a large quantity of cash. Thereafter, Det. Gilbert arrested Alford for possession of marijuana. Gilbert then patted down Alford out of concern for his safety. Detective Gilbert felt a hard object in Alford's jacket pocket which he proceeded to remove. Such substance was later analyzed and determined to be cocaine. The trial court denied Alford's motion to suppress with respect to the physical evidence seized. The trial court did, however, suppress statements made by Alford. Subsequently, Alford entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced -3- thereafter. Alford timely appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. His sole assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE. Alford argues that the trial court should have suppressed the contraband because the arrest that preceded the search was illegal. Alford maintains that he should have received a citation for possession of less than 100 grams of marijuana insofar as such offense is a minor misdemeanor. We disagree. Our review of the record indicates that Gilbert had probable cause to believe Alford was engaged in drug trafficking. Probable cause exists when the arresting officer has sufficient information to warrant a prudent man in believing that a felony has been or is being committed and that it has been or is being committed by the accused. Henry v. United States (1959), 361 U.S. 98; Brinegar v. United States (1949), 338 U.S. 160; State v. Hill (1977), 52 Ohio App. 2d 393, 370 N.E.2d 775. Detective Gilbert's observations of Alford warranted a prudent man in believing a felony was in progress. Gilbert stated that he observed a group of people consuming drugs. Alford's apparent partner exited their car and approached the group. Gilbert testified that this person carried what appeared to be a packet of drugs. Upon peering into the vehicle, Gilbert observed a wad of cash and an indeterminate amount of marijuana. Under the totality of the circumstances, we believe that Gilbert -4- had probable cause to believe that Alford had committed or was in the process of committing a felony. Accordingly, the search incident to the arrest was proper. Chimel v. California (1969), 315 U.S. 752; see State v. Holmes (1985), 28 Ohio App. 3d 12, 501 N.E.2d 629. As a result of the foregoing, we believe that the trial court's denial of Alford's motion to suppress was proper. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. -5- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DYKE, P.J., and JAMES D. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement 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. .