State v. Alltop, 2014 Ohio 1695

On Feb 11, 2013, victim Phillip Armbrust was assaulted in a library parking lot; assailants took his wallet, laptop, and accessories. Victim could not see faces; described clothing (brown jackets, ski masks).
Police recovered a brown jacket and ski mask, the laptop, and a scent trail tracked by a K-9 to near defendant Timothy Alltop’s residence; no immediate arrests.
Alltop turned himself in Feb 23; his clothes and boots were bagged and placed in jail property. On Feb 25 police—acting on a tip—seized Alltop’s boots from jail property and sent them, plus the jacket and oral swab, to BCI for DNA testing.
BCI testing matched DNA from the brown jacket to Alltop and a stain on Alltop’s boot to Armbrust. At trial the State relied on those matches and the K-9 tracking evidence.
A jury convicted Alltop of aggravated robbery (merged convictions); he was sentenced to 10 years and appealed, raising (1) denial of funds for a defense DNA expert and (2) denial of his motion to suppress DNA evidence from the boots.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying Alltop funds for a DNA/forensics expert	State: No constitutional requirement in noncapital cases; defendant failed to particularize need or show prejudice; counsel could adequately cross-examine	Alltop: Needed expert consultation and additional testing (inside of boot) to show other contributors and aid cross-examination	Denied: No abuse of discretion. Defendant failed to show particularized need or that denial rendered trial unfair; counsel effectively cross-examined experts
Whether seizure and warrantless DNA testing of boots violated Fourth Amendment	State: Boots were seized incident to lawful arrest and law permits confiscation of property on arrestee and later lab testing	Alltop: Retained privacy interest in property; state needed a warrant because boots were in jail property when seized/tests performed	Denied: Search-incident-to-arrest doctrine (Edwards) permitted seizure/testing of effects in custody shortly after arrest; suppression not required

United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (warrantless seizure and laboratory analysis of an arrestee’s seized clothing after incarceration permissible as search incident to arrest)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (search-incident-to-arrest scope: person and area within immediate control)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (search-incident-to-arrest justified by officer safety and evidence preservation; limits explained)
State v. Mason, 82 Ohio St.3d 144 (indigent defendant must make a particularized showing to obtain state-funded expert in noncapital case)
State v. Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163 (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable except for carefully drawn exceptions)