COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73470 STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE : : AND v. : : OPINION ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ : : DEFENDANT-APPELLANT : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 29, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-353577A. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES Cuyahoga County Prosecutor MICHAEL T. FISHER Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 For Defendant-appellant: DAVID G. PHILLIPS, Esq. The Truman Building 1030 Euclid Avenue, Suite 410 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 -2- SWEENEY, JAMES D., J.: Defendant-appellant Antonio Rodriguez (d.o.b. August 25, 1970), a.k.a. Antonio Stickles and Jose Rodriguez, appeals from the failure of the trial court to suppress evidence prior to his entry of a plea of no contest to (1) one count of possession of heroin and (2) one count of possession of cocaine, both in violation of R.C. 2925.11. For the reasons adduced below, we affirm. A review of the record on appeal, which includes a copy of the transcript from the hearing on the motion to suppress, indicates that the date of the offenses was May 12, 1997. At the suppression hearing, the appellant and the arresting officer testified. The appellant testified in pertinent part as follows (R. 6-14): (1) at the time of the investigatory stop by the City of Cleveland police, the witness was a passenger in the front seat of the vehicle and was not wearing his seat belt; (2) at the time of the stop, the driver of the vehicle passed the drugs to the witness, who then concealed the drugs in his boot; (3) the witness admitted to identifying himself to the police with a fictitious name, but he did so because he was scared and on probation in another case at the time; (4) the witness was unaware that he, a front seat passenger, could be cited for a seat belt violation1; (5) the witness, when prompted by the arresting officer, could not remember his social security number at the scene, but did remember it at the 1The failure of a front seat occupant of an automobile to wear their seatbelt during the vehicle's operation on any street or highway is a violation of R.C. 4513.263(B)(3), punishable by a fine of $15.00, R.C. 4513.99(G), which is a minor misdemeanor pursuant to R.C. 2901.02(G). -3- motion hearing; (6) when requested by the arresting officer, the witness did not provide his driver's license, claiming he did not have identification on his person; (7) the witness's driver's license was found later by the police in the back seat of the transporting zone car. The arresting officer, Cleveland Police Patrolman Timothy Stacho, testified in pertinent part as follows (R. 15-31): (1) while on basic patrol at approximately 7:00 p.m. on Fulton Avenue near Denison Avenue, the car in front of his began to weave erratically several times, almost striking his zone car and causing the officer to slam on his brakes; (2) the officer activated his overhead lights and pulled the offending vehicle over; (3) as the officer approached the vehicle, he observed the defendant in the front passenger seat make reaching movements and acting fidgety; (4) there was no seat belt being worn; (5) the officer asked the defendant to identify himself and to provide written identification so that the officer could prepare a non-moving traffic citation for the seat belt law violation; (6) the officer has issued like citations on several previous occasions; (7) the defendant informed the officer that he had no identification, provided an address and two versions of his birth date, and could not remember his social security number or telephone number; (8) the officer suspected that the defendant was lying; (9) the officer took the defendant into custodial detention so that he could determine the defendant's identity for purposes of preparing the citation; (10) the defendant's driver's license, bearing the name Antonio Stickle, was -4- found in the back seat of the zone car which transported the defendant to the station house later that evening at the end of the shift; (11) there were three people in the suspect vehicle at the time of the stop; (12) the defendant was not detained for not wearing his seat belt, but for failing to provide identification; and, (13) the drugs were found on the defendant during a search of his person at the station house. Following the denial of the motion to suppress, the appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of no contest. (R. 39-48.) Subsequent to the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report, the court, on October 23, 1997, sentenced appellant to six months imprisonment on each count, the minimum time available, plus costs. (R. 49-52.) This appeal2 presents one assignment of error, providing: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE & AND (SIC) FINDING THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTED FOR APPELLANT'S SEATBELT VIOLATION ARREST. Appellant argues that he submitted satisfactory information as to his identity to the arresting officer, therefore the police lacked probable cause to place him under arrest, after which time the drugs were discovered on his person. Appellant relies upon an interpretation of R.C. 2935.26(A)(2), which provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Revised Code, when a law enforcement officer is otherwise authorized to arrest a person for the commission of a minor misdemeanor, the officer shall not arrest the 2Oral argument has been waived and the matter is submitted for review and determination on the record and briefs of the parties. -5- person, but shall issue a citation, unless one of the following applies: *** (2) The offender cannot or will not offer satisfactory evidence of his identity. (Italicization added.) This statute makes clear that in minor misdemeanor cases, a citation shall issue unless one of the enumerated exceptions, which includes subparagraph 2 above, applies. State v. Slatter (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 452, 458. The underlying purpose of subparagraph 2 was addressed in State v. Satterwhite (January 25, 1995), Montgomery App. No. 14699, unreported, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 199, at 3, discretionary appeal not allowed in 72 Ohio St.3d 1538: The purpose of the identification exception in R.C. 2935.26(A)(2) is not to create a requirement that citizens carry and produce `papers' to prove who they are. Rather, its purpose is to afford the citing officer with a means of reasonably assuring himself or herself that a person charged with a violation of law, but who is allowed to proceed on his way, will likely comply with a citation requiring his later court appearance on the charge. Thus, the person is required to give not only his identity, which is necessary for a citation, but to additionally provide `satisfactory evidence' of his identity to the officer. This implies more than an accused's own representations; it requires some form of corroboration that is reasonably reliable. The requirement of providing corroborating information, in addition to a violator providing a name and birth date, to demonstrate satisfactory evidence of one's identity was upheld by this appellate court in State v. Fields (December 6, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 57635, unreported, 1990 WL 193289. -6- In the case sub judice, appellant presented the citing officer with two birth dates and a false name, could not remember his social security number and could not provide his telephone number or any written documentation supporting his meager representation of his identity. Given these facts, and assuming for the sake of argument only that the officer had an operational radio in his car with which to prompt a computer search verification of the appellant's identity on the basis of the information provided3, there was no way for the officer to verify the information at the scene without, at the least, a genuine name or social security number being verbally provided upon which to initiate the search of the electronic database.4 See State v. Satterwhite (September 5, 1997), Montgomery App. No. 16144, unreported, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4024 (suppression of evidence affirmed where the police at the scene failed to verify the defendant's identity prior to his arrest despite having the electronic means to do so at hand). Appellant failed to provide the necessary reasonable corroboration of his identity, thereby justifying his arrest and transportation to the station house. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress evidence. Assignment overruled. 3The record does not indicate whether the officer's zone car had an operational radio or access to a police computer. 4The fact that appellant provided a correct address proves no refuge. If the database could be searched solely by entering an address, the name provided by appellant, which was admittedly false, would not necessarily come up in the search as being associated with that particular address. -7- Judgment affirmed. -8- 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. KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR. ______________________________ JAMES D. SWEENEY JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .