7705 Euga Road, Newcomerstown, Ohio
A data base search of the Coshocton County Sheriff’s Department revealed deputies had contact with a 2016-2018 Nissan Altima about a month prior to the accident. Ms. Melannis Stevens was the registered owner of the vehicle. Coshocton County Sheriff’s Detective Seth Andrews learned Ms. Stevens lived at 7705 Euga Road in Guernsey County, near the scene of the accident.
A Clear Sunny Day and a Drone
Det. Andrews decided to fly a drone over the property encompassing 7705 Euga Road out of concern the Nissan was being scrapped at the location in order to hide evidence. On March 30, 2021, Det. Andrews traveled to a location adjacent to the 7705 Euga Road address, approximately 200 yards north of the primary driveway to the property. The day was clear and sunny.
Class G Airspace
Class G Airspace
Det. Andrews launched a DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise drone in an effort to find the black Nissan. The detective had two days of training and had logged approximately 1,600 minutes of flight time with the specific drone used on March 30. The drone had a camera similar to the type of camera found on a cell phone. The maximum altitude for the drone is 400 feet, or Class G airspace, as designated by the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA].
Suspect Vehicle is Discovered and a Search Warrant Obtained
Det. Andrews preset the drone to a maximum altitude of 396 feet. He operated the drone over the property at altitudes between 300 and 396 feet, taking pictures of the property. The pictures showed several acres of property, partially wooded, with two driveways. The property included a two-story house, a garage, and a number of vehicles in various stages of disrepair near a fire pit. The photos showed a black Nissan Altima in the wooded area behind the home and behind the fire pit, approximately 280 feet from the residence and 80 feet from a neighboring parcel of real estate. A closeup shot of the vehicle showed it was missing a door, and other parts were on the ground near the vehicle and near a burn pile. The vehicle was not covered, and the trees were defoliated because it was still winter, providing no coverage for the vehicle from the air. The information obtained from the drone search was used to obtain a search warrant for the property.
Indicted
Indicted
Ms. Stevens was indicted by the Coshocton County Grand Jury on two counts of failure to stop at the scene of an accident, two counts of vehicular assault, and one count of tampering with evidence. The two charges of failure to stop at the scene of an accident were indicted as felonies rather than misdemeanors because the indictment included additional allegations the accident resulted in “serious physical harm to a person.”
Motion to Suppress is Overruled Based on the Open Fields Doctrine
Ms. Stevens filed a motion to suppress, arguing the warrantless drone search of the property was unconstitutional. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled the motion, finding the vehicle was not within the curtilage of the home and was therefore subject to the “open fields” doctrine, in which Ms. Stevens did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The trial court held even if the open fields doctrine did not apply in this case, the search was not unconstitutional because the officer was operating the drone in public navigable airspace in a nonintrusive manner, which does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Convicted and Sentenced to Eighty-Four Months or Seven Years
Convicted and Sentenced to Eighty-Four Months or Seven Years
Ms. Stevens entered pleas of no contest to all five counts of the indictment, and was convicted. The trial court sentenced Ms. Stevens to an aggregate term of incarceration of eighty-four months. It is from the May 24, 2022 judgment of the trial court Ms. Stevens prosecutes her appeal, assigning as error: Ms. Stevens filed two motions to suppress both were denied. Only one of the motions will be evaluated in this article.
[T]he warrantless search of the property by the drone did not fall within any recognized exception to the requirement of a warrant.
In her second assignment of error, Ms. Stevens argues the trial court erred in overruling her motion to suppress. He argues the warrantless search of the property by the drone did not fall within any recognized exception to the requirement of a warrant, and he further argues Det. Andrews was not federally licensed to fly the drone.
Ms. Stevens Failed to Raise a Claim at Trial So It Cannot be Raised in Appeal
Ms. Stevens did not raise the issue of Det. Andrew’s lack of a license to fly the drone in her motion to suppress, nor did the trial court consider the issue. “It is well-settled law that issues not raised in the trial court may not be raised for the first time on appeal because such issues are deemed waived.”
No Warrant Required
Ms. Stevens also argues contra to the trial court’s findings, the warrantless search by the drone did not fall into any recognized exception to the requirement of a warrant. The trial court found the car was not located within the curtilage of the house, and thus the “open fields” doctrine applied; therefore, Ms. Stevens did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area where the car was found. Accordingly, police were not required to have a warrant to search the wooded area where the car was located, whether such search was by drone or on foot.