COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69002 CITY OF GARFIELD HEIGHTS : : ACCELERATED DOCKET : PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : JAMIE L. WILK : OPINION : : PER CURIAM DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 12, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Garfield Heights Municipal Court, Case No. 95-TRD-00133. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: James J. McGrath IV Prosecutor City of Garfield Heights 5407 Turney Road Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125 For Defendant-appellant: Sherry A. Pidala, Esq. 650 Broadway Avenue Bedford,Ohio 44146 - 2 - PER CURIAM: An accelerated appeal is authorized pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 25. The purpose of an accelerated docket is to allow an appellate court to render a brief and conclusionary decision. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 158; App.R. 11.1(E). In the present case, defendant-appellant Jamie L. Wilk ("Wilk"), d.o.b. October 13, 1975, appeals from his plea of no contest to one count of Driving Under Suspension in violation of R.C. 4507.02. For the reasons adduced below, we affirm. A review of the record on appeal reflects that a hearing was conducted on March 14, 1995, on Wilk's motion to suppress evidence. At this hearing, the City Prosecutor offered the testimony of Garfield Heights Patrolman Lawrence Remendowski, who stated in pertinent part the following (R. 4-27): (1) he has been employed by the City as a patrolman for seven years; (2) while alone on patrol in a marked police cruiser in the early morning hours of January 6, 1995, at approximately 2:15 a.m., he was radio- dispatched to the area of Garfield Boulevard due to an anonymous citizen complaint of a suspicious white car containing four young persons slowly cruising the area, through the neighborhood back streets, amid complaints of hotrodding; (3) he arrived at the scene but did not notice anything out of the ordinary, so he concentrated on patrolling that general area for awhile; (4) after a short period of time and within one mile of the area where he had been - 3 - dispatched to originally, at approximately 3:00 a.m., he came upon a white 1986 Chevrolet containing four persons inside driving slowly through the neighborhoods; (5) believing the white car to be the suspect vehicle being sought, he followed the slowly moving suspect car for about a quarter of a mile before he turned on his overhead flashing lights, stopped the suspect car and approached that car on foot; (6) a young female, the defendant herein, was driving the vehicle; (7) he obtained pertinent information from the driver in the form of a social security number, and after checking that information through the police computer, learned that the driver had a suspended driver's license; (8) another passenger was found to have an outstanding warrant from the City of North Olmsted; (9) the remaining passengers were released after their record disclosed no violations; (10) the act of driving slowly through neighborhoods in the early morning hours, through his experience, indicates the possibility of criminal conduct; (11) prior to stopping the suspect car, he saw no traffic violations and no furtive movements from the car's occupants, but believed the car to be going slower than the posted speed limit of 25 m.p.h.; (12) the occupants of the suspect car appeared to be underage, which would have provided an independent basis for the officer to check identifications for a curfew violation; (13) no other light-colored vehicles were seen in the area of the search; (14) within minutes of stopping the suspect vehicle, several additional police cruisers arrived on the scene. - 4 - Following oral argument, the court determined that the stop 1 was a proper investigatory stop and denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, on April 5, 1995, Wilk withdrew her plea of not guilty and entered a plea of no contest. The court convicted Wilk of the offense charged, a first degree misdemeanor, and sentenced Wilk to the following: 1. a fine of $1,000.00 plus court costs; 2. 180 days in jail; 3. $650.00 and 175 days suspended; 4. three years of inactive probation; and, 5. driving privileges suspended for one year, and if proof of financial responsibility is not produced within five days to the court, the driving privilege suspension will be increased to a total of three years suspension. This timely appeal, wherein oral argument has been waived, presents the following sole assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL ARREST FOLLOWING AN ILLEGAL STOP. In analyzing this assignment we are mindful of the following language from Beachwood v. Sims (Cuyahoga, 1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 9, 13-14: As the Supreme Court of Ohio held in State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 524 N.E.2d 489, " '[i]n determining whether the search and seizure were "unreasonable" our inquiry is a 1 The court noted at the hearing that Wilk "barely looks like she's 16." (R. 36.) - 5 - dual one -- whether the officer's action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstance which justified the interference in the first place.' " Id. at 178, 524 N.E.2d at 491, quoting Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. The investigative stop exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a police officer to stop an individual if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that criminal behavior has either occurred or is imminent. Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d at 906. The police officer, in justifying the particular intrusion, must point to specific and articulable facts warranting a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the officer's action was appropriate. Id. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. at 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d at 906. The propriety of an investigative stop in Ohio must be viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 565 N.E.2d 1271; Bobo; State v. Freeman (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 291, 18 O.O.3d 472, 414 N.E.2d 1044. Also see, Alabama v. White (1990), 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (under the totality of the circumstances, an anonymous tip corroborated by independent police work is sufficient to justify an investigatory stop). In the present case, the police department received an anonymous complaint in the early morning hours concerning hotrodding and a group of young-looking individuals driving a white car slowly through neighborhoods. The police dispatcher notified patrolling squad cars. Thereafter, the suspect vehicle with four young-looking occupants was observed by the arresting officer driving below the residential speed limit for over a quarter of a - 6 - mile through a residential neighborhood, which according to the officer's experience indicates the possibility of criminal behavior. The information given by the anonymous informant, and relayed by the police dispatcher, was corroborated by the personal observations of the arresting officer. Additionally, the fact that the car's occupants appeared to be under the age of majority provided a reasonable basis for the officer to stop the vehicle to check identifications for curfew violations. Based on the above, we conclude that the court did not err in denying the motion to suppress since the investigatory stop was appropriate under the totality of the circumstances. Assignment overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 7 - 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 Garfield Heights Municipal 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. JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J. DAVID T. MATIA, J. TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J. 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, .