COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60655 : : STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellant : : -vs- : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND RHONDA PORATH : OPINION : Defendant-Appellee : : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JULY 30, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-234816 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Cuyahoga GORDON S. FRIEDMAN County Prosecuting Attorney Friedman & Gilbert JOHN REULBACH, Assistant Standard Bldg., Suite 1700 Prosecuting Attorney 1370 Ontario Street Justice Center, Courts Tower Cleveland, Ohio 44113 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- ANN McMANAMON, J.: The state appeals the granting of Rhonda Porath's motion to suppress evidence. In one assignment of error, the state argues the investigatory stop and later search of Porath complied with the mandates of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The search disclosed a film canister which contained cocaine. Porath was charged with possession of cocaine (R.C. 2925.11) and criminal tools (R.C. 2923.24). Upon a review of the record, we affirm the court's ruling. A police officer may detain an individual if the officer has a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1; State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St. 3d 86. The validity of such a stop must be based upon the totality of the surrounding circumstances. Andrews, supra, at 87; State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St. 3d 177. Furthermore, the officer may conduct a pat-down search for weapons if the officer is "justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer ***." Terry, supra, at 24. Since the sole justification for the search is the safety of the officer, the scope of the intrusion is limited to a search reasonably designed to discover guns, knives or other hidden instruments which could be used to assault the officer. Id. at 29. See, also, State v. Cartledge (Oct. 17, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 61554, unreported, at 3. Cleveland police detective Jones testified that on December 20, 1988 at 9:30 p.m., he and his partner were patrolling Hough Avenue in response to citizen complaints of drug activity. The -3- officers observed two men and a woman, Rhonda Porath, standing in front of a building. As Jones and his partner, in an unmarked police car, approached these individuals, "someone" yelled "sixty-five." Jones explained that "sixty-five" is a street term used to warn of police presence in an area. According to Jones, one of the men with Porath ran while the other man threw an object over a fence and tried to walk away. The officers observed Porath place an unidentifiable object in her pants pocket. Jones told the court he ordered the man who threw the object and Porath to stop. The officers found the discarded object to be a glove containing a small gun. Officer Jones ordered Porath to empty her pants pockets and place their contents on the police car. As a result of this search, the officers discovered a "small clear plastic film case" containing a substance which appeared to be cocaine. At that time, Porath was placed under arrest. This court has held that an investigatory stop may not be premised upon a mere congregation of individuals who flee upon observing police officers. State v. Matthews (Oct. 10, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 61487, unreported; State v. Hewston (Aug. 2, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 59711, 59712, unreported; State v. Mincey (Dec. 27, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 59913, unreported. In dicta, we have indicated such actions may be enough to justify a stop if the officers also observe a transactions or if the individuals discard objects. Mincey, supra, at 4. -4- The officers observed Porath and her companions on a corner in an area known for drug activity. As the police approached, the men fled with one of them discarding an object. Porath placed an object in her pants. Based upon these actions, and the officers' experience, we find Detective Jones and his partner had reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory stop. Andrews, supra; Mincey, supra. The subsequent search, however, violated Porath's Fourth Amendment rights. As we noted, a pat-down search is permitted for the safety of the police officers and, thus, it is limited in scope. Terry, supra; Cartledge, supra. In the instant case, the officers ordered Porath to empty her pockets of all objects, including the film canister. Detective Jones testified he did not see Porath with a weapon before the search and that the bulge in her pocket from the film canister was not in the shape of a weapon. The officers seized the canister. We find the search exceeded constitutional limits and the trial court properly suppressed the evidence. The assignment of error is overruled and the trial court's judgment affirmed. Judgment affirmed. -5- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant her 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. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rule of Appellate Procedure. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, P.J., and JOHN T. PATTON, J., CONCUR ______________________________ ANN McMANAMON, 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. .