# State v. Klein

> Ohio Court of Appeals · May 6, 1991 · 73 Ohio App. 3d 486

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3710526

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. KLEIN, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 6, 1991
- **Citations:** 73 Ohio App. 3d 486; 597 N.E.2d 1141; 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 2399
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stephenson
- **Judges:** Harsha, Grey, Stephenson
- **Cited by:** 789 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3710526

## Opinion text

Stephenson, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and opinion, but write separately in order to reconcile our decision herein with the recent Supreme Court decision in
State v. Andrews
(1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86 , 565 N.E.2d 1271 . In
Andrews ,
the court held that a combination of factors present in that case would give rise to “an objective and particularized suspicion” of criminal activity even though any of those factors, by itself, would not. In particular, the court focused on the area’s reputation for criminal activity as well as the suspect’s apparent flight from police officers. The court also made reference to several additional factors advanced by the prosecution which included the following: (1) the incident occurred at night in the dark, (2) the level of experience of the police officer, and (3) the fact that the police officer was away from his cruiser at the time of the stop.
Id.
at 88 , 565 N.E.2d at 1273 .
In the cause
sub judice,
the incident occurred at night and, arguably, the testimony of Sgt. Waite may establish that the area of Pottmeyer’s Auto Sales had a reputation for criminal activity. Otherwise, none of those other factors suggested in
Andrews
is present herein. Moreover, Sgt. Waite
explicitly
answered that he did not observe appellant do anything which would indicate that he was up to some sort of criminal activity. Thus, I concur with the majority that the police stop at issue herein violated appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3710526. Public record. Not legal advice.