COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 66870 : STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : and -vs- : : OPINION : DELAND SAWYER : : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT MARCH 9, 1995 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-300698 JUDGMENT: Reversed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES, ESQ. RUBEN E. POPE, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 620 Leader Building WILLIAM TELZROW, ESQ. Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 8th Floor Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: The state of Ohio, plaintiff-appellant, appeals a decision from the trial court granting a motion to suppress evidence seized from Deland Sawyer, defendant-appellee. The state of Ohio assigns the following error for our review: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE POLICE HAD NO RIGHT TO SEIZE ANY OF THE CONFISCATED ITEMS. Having reviewed the record of the proceedings and the legal arguments presented by the parties, we reverse the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow. After his arrest on charges of possession of criminal tools and drug abuse, Sawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from him at the time of his arrest. At a hearing on the motion to suppress, the state presented the testimony of Detective Jeffrey Sampson of the Cleveland Police Department Narcotic Unit. Sampson testified that, on August 17, 1993, seven members of the Cleveland Police Narcotics Unit were patrolling an area near E. 140th and Aspinwall. The officers were in plainclothes and were traveling in unmarked cars. The officers observed Deland Sawyer, defendant-appellee, unlawfully riding a mini bike on the sidewalk and decided to stop him. Shortly after the officers turned on their lights and sirens, Sawyer briefly sped up, then pulled over. Detective Sampson went up to Sawyer and asked him for some identification. Sawyer reached into his pocket and, at that time, Detective Sampson noticed a -3- plastic bag partially protruding from Sawyer's pocket. Detective Sampson gave the following testimony at the suppression hearing: Q: Upon seeing that bag, what did you do, what were you thinking? A: Well, when I observed the bag, I looked at it a little closer and I seen [sic] some white specs in it. So after I observed the white specs in the bag, I pulled the bag from his pocket. Q: Why did you remove the bag? A: Because, at the time I, I was thinking that it was possibly crack cocaine residue in the bag. (Tr. 23) The officers seized the bag. Inside the 4" x 4" bag was another bag of similar size and three 1" x 1" plastic Ziploc bags. Sawyer was placed under arrest. A subsequent search yielded $1,026.00 in cash and a mobile pager. Sawyer was charged with drug abuse and possession of criminal tools. His motion to suppress the evidence seized from him was granted by the trial court. The trial court viewed the determinative issue as whether the observation of small white crumbs in a plastic bag gave the police officers probable cause to arrest Sawyer. The court opined that the "crumbs" allegedly spotted by Sampson were too small to have attracted Sampson's attention. The court concluded that the discovery of the plastic bag which contained small amounts of residue that may or may not have been cocaine did not give the officers sufficient probable cause to arrest Sawyer. The state filed this timely appeal. -4- In its sole assignment of error, the state argues the trial court erred in finding the police had no right to seize any of the items seized from Sawyer. The state argues the police had probable cause to stop Sawyer because he committed a minor misdemeanor by riding his mini bike on the sidewalk. They further argue that the plastic bag was rightfully seized under the plain view doctrine and that the pager was seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest. The plain view doctrine authorizes the warrantless seizure of an inadvertently discovered object or contraband whose incriminating nature is immediately apparent. State v. Davie (1993), 86 Ohio App.3d 460,464. However, the initial intrusion which put the officer in the position to find the object or contraband must be lawful. State v. Waddy (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 424,442. In the case sub judice, the trial court found that the initial stop of Sawyer was lawful. At the suppression hearing, the state presented evidence that Sawyer was unlawfully driving his mini bike on the sidewalk and that the officers intended to ticket him for the traffic violation. Because Sawyer was committing a traffic violation, the police officers were justified in stopping him. During the course of the stop, the plastic bag was spotted protruding from Sawyer's pocket. The state established that there was a valid stop and that the discovery of the plastic bag was inadvertent. -5- Detective Sampson testified that, upon spotting the plastic bag, he immediately recognized the substance in the bag as cocaine residue. This evidence established that the incriminating nature of the bag was immediately apparent. However, the trial court ruled that the minuscule crumbs in the plastic bag did not provide the officers with sufficient probable cause to arrest Sawyer. We disagree. The officers were experienced in the area of narcotics. They knew how drugs are packaged, how they look, and how they are transported. An officer's reasonable belief that a crime has been committed is sufficient probable cause for an arrest. The officer need not be absolutely certain that a crime is committed. At the time of his arrest, Sawyer was on a mini-bike which was known by the officers to be a favorite means of transporting drugs and avoiding police. He also was traveling in an area of high drug activity. He attempted to get away from police and looked around nervously as they pursued him. The "crumbs" were located in a plastic bag containing several smaller plastic Ziploc bags commonly used to hold crack cocaine. Under the circumstances, the officers had sufficient probable cause to arrest Sawyer. Because we find that the plastic bag, which was lawfully seized in plain view pursuant to a legally permissible stop, constituted sufficient probable cause to arrest Sawyer, we reverse the trial court's decision to suppress the plastic bag as well as the other evidence seized during Sawyer's arrest. Judgment reversed. -6- This cause is reversed. It is, therefore, considered that said Appellant recover of said Appellee its 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. NUGENT, J., and PRYATEL, J.*, CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON PRESIDING JUDGE (*SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: AUGUST PRYATEL, RETIRED JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT.) 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 journaliza- tion, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the .