State v. Adams, 2015 Ohio 5072

Background

Trooper Miller stopped a Chrysler at ~10:00 p.m. after observing what he believed was a brake-light defect near an apartment known for drug activity; dash-cam quality did not clearly show the light malfunction.
On approaching, the trooper smelled raw marijuana; Adams admitted to carrying a small amount of marijuana and was asked to exit the vehicle.
Miller handcuffed Adams, read Miranda rights, and conducted a thorough search; during that search the officer felt a lump in Adams' rear pants pocket that later "disappeared."
Backup arrived; while officers attempted to search the car the key fob locked the doors, so a towing company was called to open the vehicle. Miller performed another pat-down (off-camera) and, when shaking Adams’ pant leg, a bag with ~16 grams of cocaine fell out.
Adams was indicted for cocaine possession; he moved to suppress the cocaine as fruit of an unlawful arrest/search. The trial court granted suppression, finding the custodial arrest/search impermissible under Ohio law for minor misdemeanors absent statutory exceptions. The state appealed and the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the custodial arrest and subsequent pat-down/search were lawful after a stop for a minor misdemeanor (alleged brake-light violation) and admission of small marijuana possession	Arrest and searches were lawful: trooper observed a vehicle equipment violation and smelled marijuana, and the officer reasonably believed suspect might be armed	Arrest for minor misdemeanor (marijuana possession and brake-light violation) was unlawful because none of R.C. 2935.26 exceptions applied; thus evidence seized incident to that arrest must be suppressed	Arrest and ensuing pat-down that produced cocaine were unlawful; trial court order suppressing the cocaine affirmed
Whether officer could continue/search for weapons or contraband after initial search where officer perceived possible danger and a lump briefly felt in pants pocket	Trooper’s concern about being armed and the lump justified a Terry-type frisk and continued searches; Moore and automobile-exception principles support searching person and vehicle	After Adams admitted to marijuana, a search for it sufficed; no present justification for full custodial arrest or extended pat-down; Moore is distinguishable because admission made further search unnecessary and automobile/trunk search exceeded Moore’s scope	Terry frisk limited to locating weapons; no valid basis existed for the later pat-down that produced cocaine; Moore distinguished and does not validate the extended search; suppression proper

Key Cases Cited

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review on suppression: trial court fact findings accepted if supported; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
Mills v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1991) (trial judge as factfinder and credibility determinations)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2001) (Fourth Amendment does not prohibit arrest for minor misdemeanor but state constitutions may impose greater limits)
State v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 323 (Ohio 2003) (under Ohio Constitution, custodial arrests for minor misdemeanors are unlawful absent statutory exceptions; evidence obtained incident to such arrests is suppressible)
State v. Jones, 88 Ohio St.3d 430 (Ohio 2000) (discussing suppression and custodial arrests under state law)
U.S. v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1976) (addressing arrest authority and context for minor offenses)
State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 2000) (holding that smelling marijuana can justify warrantless search of automobile and, under exigent-circumstances rationale, search of occupants; court here distinguishes Moore on facts)