Court vacates convictions, red sweatshirt not distinctive in Cincinnati

Apr 01, 2024

A state appeals court has thrown out a teen’s convictions in Hamilton County Juvenile Court, saying police did not have a reasonable basis to stop the 16-year-old and his companions before searching them.

The group was stopped by Cincinnati police the afternoon of May 28, 2021, in connection with a shooting at a gas station, which happened days earlier.

A pastor at a church near the gas station had contacted an officer, saying the 16-year-old and his companions looked like the people depicted in a surveillance video of the shooting and that they were again at the gas station. The appeals court’s opinion does not specify the location.

The pastor said the teens were wearing the same clothes as the day of the shooting and speculated they had a gun.

The officer then sent photos taken from the surveillance video to another officer. The photos did not show the faces of the suspects. One individual, who was holding a handgun, wore “a red, hooded sweatshirt with a white logo in the center of the chest,” according to the opinion from the 1st District Court of Appeals released Friday.

The opinion notes that a red sweatshirt is “not unusual or distinctive clothing, especially in Cincinnati,” which is home to the Reds as well as the University of Cincinnati Bearcats.

The officer who received the photos and a partner drove to the gas station but didn’t see anyone. About a block from the station, the officers saw the 16-year-old and two companions – one of whom was wearing a red sweatshirt.

The officers stopped the group. They patted down all three, according to testimony, and found a gun in the front pocket of the 16-year-old’s sweatshirt – which was not red – along with some methamphetamine pills.

Officers didn’t, however, find anything on the individual who was wearing the red sweatshirt.

The 16-year-old later pleaded no contest to four charges but appealed.

Under the Fourth Amendment, according to the court's opinion, an officer can briefly stop someone if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” based on specific facts that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent.

The pastor’s information “can be afforded little weight in providing reasonable suspicion” to stop the 16-year-old and his companions, the opinion says. The only descriptive and reliable information on the suspects in the shooting was from the surveillance photos, which did not show anyone’s faces.

“The pastor’s tip provided no additional detail as to the identity of the suspects in the shooting, merely the location of a red-sweatshirt-wearing individual walking with two other people,” the opinion says.

Because the stop was unreasonable, it says, the subsequent search of the clothing was improper.