(1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;

(5) Knowingly enter or remain in any vacant and vandalized building or structure, including, but not limited to, a formerly occupied residential dwelling or dwelling unit, without having on his person the
written permission of the owner of such structure granting
permission to be in any such building or structure. This paragraph does not apply to governmental officers or employees when carrying out a lawful governmental function.
(d) Whoever violates paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3) and (4) of this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree, and shall be imprisoned for not less than six months or not more than one year or fined not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both.

(e) Whoever violates subsection (a)(5) is guilty of trespassing on a vacant and vandalized building, a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(f) As used in this section, “land or premises” includes any land, building, structure of place belonging to, controlled by or in custody of another, and any separate enclosure or room, or portion thereof.
(RC 2911.21; Ord. No. 1160-82. Passed 11-22-82, eff. 11-26-82)

But let’s talk on your terms. No, they weren’t trespassing; trying to get into the house (and there’s no evidence they were) would have been a criminal offense, but standing on vacant property isn’t. So what you have is that somebody throwing something down is sufficiently reasonable evidence of criminal activity to warrant a stop. Had the police retrieved the item and determined that it was contraband, that would have justified a stop. Absent that, I don’t think it was valid. As for the “safety” issue, I don’t see it. The item’s been discarded, and is no longer a threat to the officers.

That’s my take on it, of course, and I’m perfectly happy to concede that other people conclude differently. That’s why I don’t think these cases lend themselves to pronouncements about what is “absolutely correct,” one way or the other.

With all due respect, both the trial court and the appellate court got this one absolutely correct.

Defendant was trespassing. He was observed to throw something that could still have been retrieved with a lunge.

Police could have turned a blind eye toward this illegal activity or could have proceeded to investigate further.

The citizens who live in this area SCREAM and demand that police investigate further.

As a police officer who proceeds to do his/her duty has every right to ensure their personal safety with actions designed to do so. (in this case a brief detention with hands exposed, the frisk doesn’t take place until police observe another criminal offense, the drugs at the feet.)

If you can give us your analysis of what the police should have done in this case it would be helpful. It’s easy to point out what they can’t do 20 months after the fact in the safety of your blog.