[Cite as State v. Luckey, 2026-Ohio-3327.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250684
TRIAL NO. 25/CRB/8723
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
JUDGMENT ENTRY
VEASIA LUCKEY, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs.
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.
The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk:
Enter upon the journal of the court on 8/26/2026.
Pursuant to App.R. 30, the clerk is directed to send all parties, or their counsel if represented, a copy of the court’s judgment and note such action on the docket.
By:_______________________
Administrative Judge
[Cite as State v. Luckey, 2026-Ohio-3327.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-250684
TRIAL NO. 25/CRB/8723
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. :
OPINION
VEASIA LUCKEY, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 26, 2026
Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, Susan M. Zurface, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Carla N. Weaver and Robert E. Rickey, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Angela W. Chang, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Joshua A. Thompson, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
[Cite as State v. Luckey, 2026-Ohio-3327.]
NESTOR, Judge.
{¶1} After receiving a report that a young child had been left home alone,
Cincinnati police entered defendant-appellant Veasia Luckey’s home without a
warrant. Luckey argues that this warrantless search violated her constitutional rights.
The State contends that the search was justified in order to ensure the safety and
wellbeing of the child.
{¶2} We agree with the State. The police officer in this case was privileged to
enter the home without a warrant based on exigent circumstances.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶3} Luckey was charged with endangering children under R.C. 2919.22(A),
which is a first-degree misdemeanor. She filed a motion to suppress, arguing that a
warrantless search of her apartment violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The
following facts were discerned at the suppression hearing.
{¶4} On May 27, 2025, Officer Kelly Drach was dispatched to an apartment
building in Walnut Hills. When Officer Drach arrived, she spoke with the building
manager, who informed her that a child had been left alone in an apartment for
approximately 13 hours. When describing the child, the building manager stated that
the child was “just a baby.” The building manager also told Officer Drach that the child
was nonverbal and on the autism spectrum. This interaction was captured on Officer
Drach’s body-worn camera footage (“BWC”), which was viewed by the trial court and
admitted into evidence at the hearing.
{¶5} Based on this information, Officer Drach decided to enter the
apartment. Officer Drach testified that when she entered the apartment, she saw
“filth” and “trash all over the floor.” She also testified that the child did not have access
to food or a restroom.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶6} The trial court denied Luckey’s motion to suppress, reasoning that the
exigent circumstances provided Officer Drach with a reasonable basis to enter the
apartment.
{¶7} Luckey pleaded no-contest and was subsequently found guilty of child
endangering. She now appeals.
II. Analysis
{¶8} In one assignment of error, Luckey argues that the trial court erred in
denying her motion to suppress the search of her apartment and all evidence obtained
therein.
A. Assignment of Error
{¶9} Appellate review of a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress
“presents a mixed question of law and fact.” State v. Burnside, 2003-Ohio-5372, ¶ 8.
We accept the trial court’s findings as long as they are supported by competent,
credible evidence. State v. Rogers, 2022-Ohio-4535, ¶ 26 (1st Dist.). We then
independently determine whether the facts satisfy the applicable legal standard. Id.,
citing Burnside at ¶ 8.
{¶10} The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and
seizures by the government. U.S. Const., amend. IV. Warrantless searches and
seizures “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few
specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389
U.S. 347, 357 (1967).
{¶11} “‘[W]arrants are generally required to search a person’s home . . . unless
the ‘exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that
the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’” State
v. Buck, 2017-Ohio-8242, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.), quoting Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S.
4
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
398, 403 (2006). Warrantless searches are justified where exigent circumstances exist
because “‘there is a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a
warrant.’” Id., quoting Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978).
{¶12} If a law enforcement officer “reasonably believe[s], based on specific
and articulable facts, that a person within the home is in need of immediate aid,” the
“emergency-aid” exception allows them “to enter a home without a warrant and
without probable cause.” Id. at ¶ 21. Courts look at the totality of the circumstances
to determine “whether police faced an emergency that justified acting without a
warrant.” Id. at ¶ 22, citing Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 149 (2013). Law
enforcement officers do not need “ironclad proof” of a life-threatening emergency. Id.
at ¶ 23, quoting State v. Dunn, 2012-Ohio-1008, ¶ 19. Rather, the question is whether
a reasonable police officer would believe exigent circumstances exist. Id., citing Dunn
at ¶ 22.
{¶13} Here, Officer Drach believed that an autistic, nonverbal child had been
left home alone for over 13 hours. Under these circumstances, a reasonable police
officer would believe exigent circumstances exist and that waiting to obtain a warrant
could jeopardize the child’s health or safety. “Young children left unsupervised in a
house provide[] exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless entry into the premises
to locate the children, determine if they are in need of aid, and secure their safety.”
State v. Wyatt, 2004-Ohio-6546, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.); see State v. Edwards, 2010-Ohio826, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.).
{¶14} Therefore, Officer Drach’s warrantless entry of the apartment was
justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s
general prohibition against warrantless searches. The trial court did not err in denying
Luckey’s motion to suppress.
5
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶15} The assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶16} Having overruled Luckey’s sole assignment of error, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
BOCK, P.J., and MOORE, J., concur.
6