State v. Barton (amicus)

  • Filed: November 24, 2025
  • Status: Pending
  • Court: Ohio Supreme Court
  • Latest Update: Mar 27, 2026
Placeholder image

FACTS:

On the evening of April 16, 2023, at 11:15 pm, Deputy Staggs of the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office initiated a traffic stop of Danielle Barton and her passenger for the

alleged improper display of her temporary license plate, a non-arrestable minor misdemeanor. Deputy Staggs then asked Ms. Barton to step out of her vehicle with her license so he could show her the violation and write her a warning. Deputy Staggs then returned to his cruiser to verify Ms. Barton's driver’s license and to run a search of her passenger’s name, in he discovered that the passenger had an outstanding warrant from Clermont County. As Deputy Staggs was running these searches, Deputy Friedhoff and his canine-detection canine, Falco, arrived on the scene as backup.

Deputy Staggs took Ms. Barton’s passenger into custody, and placed him in the back of his cruiser. Deputy Staggs then asked Ms. Barton if he could search her vehicle—she did not consent. Deputy Staggs then informed Ms. Barton that he would have Deputy Friedhoff's canine sniff the outside of her vehicle. Deputy Staggs told Ms. Barton to stand on a concrete ledge beside the sidewalk, and stated that if the canine alerted, they would have probable cause to search the vehicle.
Deputy Freidhoff took his canine partner, Falco, out of his vehicle and guided him around Ms. Barton’s vehicle. The canine walked past the driver side door to the rear driver-side tire, doubled back toward the driver side door, and jumped up on the open driver's window, placing its entire head inside the vehicle for about three seconds. After this, the canine sat down to alert Deputy Friedhoff. Deputy Friedhoff then rewarded the canine with a yellow ball, telling him “good boy” and returned him to the cruiser.

Deputy Friedhoff and Deputy Staggs then began to search Ms. Barton’s vehicle. They entered the vehicle and opened every bag and compartment in the vehicle. While searching through Ms. Barton’s and her passenger’s belongings, the deputies found one pair of hypodermic needles in a gold handbag in the front of the vehicle and another pair of needles in a pack in the back seat. Ms. Barton was charged with possession of a drug abuse instrument, a second degree misdemeanor.

LEGAL THEORY:

A canine’s intrusion into a vehicle is a search protected by the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, irrespective of whether the intrusion is “instinctive.”

STATUS:

Ms. Barton moved to suppress the evidence from her traffic stop in the criminal case against her. The trial court denied her motion, and she plead no contest to the charges and appealed the trial court’s decision. The First District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision and Ms. Barton brought her appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court on July 11, 2025. The Court accepted jurisdiction on September 16.

Appellant’s merit brief and our amicus brief supporting her were filed on November 24, 2025. Appellees filed their merit brief on January 13, 2026. Ms. Barton filed a Reply brief on February 2. Oral argument has been scheduled for April 15, to be held off-site at a high school in Carroll County. The Ohio Attorney General was granted permission on February 25 to share time with appellee as amicus-in-support.

Case Number:
2025-0912
Attorney(s):
Amy Gilbert, Freda Levenson, Julian Clark