By Lucas Daprile
cleveland.com
CLEVELAND, Ohio — If a police officer stops a car thinking the driver had a nonworking headlight, but then learns they were wrong, they do not have to immediately let the driver go.
That’s the latest ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court in a 2018 case where Quentin Fips, 36, said Linndale police illegally searched him. That search resulted in police finding drugs and a scale in his car, prompting in felony charges.
| DOWNLOAD: Governing AI in policing — What law enforcement leaders need to know
Police initially pulled Fips over because they believed one of the headlights on his car was out, according to a briefing from the Supreme Court.
Police asked Fips for his license, but he provided his social security number instead. The officer then asked about Fips’ headlight, and Fips showed them his headlights were working, and that it was only the fog light that was nonfunctional.
Police then checked Fips’ social security number and found he had a warrant for his arrest and did not have a valid driver’s license.
From there, police arrested Fips and searched his car, finding 47 grams of crack cocaine and a scale.
Fips filed a motion with the court to toss the evidence obtained in the search of his car, saying police should have ended the traffic stop once they learned his headlights were, in fact, working.
First, the trial court denied his request, then the Eighth District Court of Appeals changed course, siding with Fips.
The Ohio Supreme Court sided with police, saying officers were within their rights to continue the traffic stop because they still had to run Fips’ social security number through the police database, which then led them to discover the arrest warrant.
“The mission of a lawful traffic stop includes confirming that a licensed driver is in the driver’s seat of the car,” according to the court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Joseph Deters. “This remains true even if further investigation dispels the reasonable suspicion that prompted the stop.”
Justices Deters, Patrick DeWine, Jennifer Brunner, Daniel Hawkins and Megan Shannahan sided with the majority.
Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy sided with prosecutors but wrote her own opinion because she argued her colleagues incorrectly applied a previous case’s precedent to the Fips case.
Justice Patrick Fischer dissented, saying the appeal should not have been accepted. Fischer did not detail the reason why.
©2026 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit cleveland.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
