State v. Atkinson, 2021 Ohio 3844

Background

On July 5, 2020 Deputy Bargo stopped Atkinson for driving a dark SUV without headlights/taillights; the vehicle displayed plates that ran to a different car. Neither Atkinson nor her passenger had valid driver’s licenses.
Bargo decided the vehicle would be towed under Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) tow policy and said she would perform an inventory search before towing. Atkinson objected; she said she would give the ignition/glove-box key to the tow driver when he arrived.
Deputies threatened to handcuff/arrest Atkinson (and arrested the passenger) to obtain the keys; Atkinson then surrendered the keys. The deputy opened the locked glove box and found a loaded handgun. Atkinson later admitted a prior drug-trafficking conviction, making her statutorily ineligible to possess a firearm.
Atkinson moved to suppress the gun, arguing the vehicle was not lawfully impounded, the key was not “available,” and the search was a pretext; the trial court denied suppression, finding the tow and inventory legitimate and that deputies had probable cause for arrest. Atkinson pled no contest to having weapons while under disability and received community control.
The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning the impoundment fell within the MCSO caretaking/tow policy (vehicle in trafficway and with fictitious plates), the inventory policy authorized searching a locked glove box when a key is available, and deputies had at least probable cause to arrest, so the threat to arrest did not make surrender of the key involuntary.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Atkinson)	Held
Lawfulness of impoundment	Tow lawful under MCSO policy: vehicle was in trafficway, had fictitious plates, and could not be lawfully driven	Impoundment not authorized by policy: vehicle was not unattended/abandoned or an immediate traffic hazard; decision rested on reasons not in evidence	Court: Impoundment lawful under the caretaking/tow policy (vehicle in trafficway and with fictitious plates made it not lawfully drivable)
Validity of inventory search of locked glove box	Inventory policy requires inventory of towed vehicles and authorizes searching glove/console if key is available; key was on scene and would be delivered to tow driver	Key was in Atkinson’s possession and not “available”; deputies had no right to demand or seize it from a nonarrested owner	Court: Inventory doctrine applies; key became available on scene and policy authorized searching locked glove box
Whether threat to arrest coerced surrender of keys	Threat was not coercive because deputies had probable cause to arrest (fictitious plates, no license) so surrender was not involuntary	Threat to arrest was coercive and baseless (no lawful basis to arrest for refusing keys); consent/inventory thus involuntary	Court: Deputies had probable cause to arrest for fictitious plates; threat was not coercive and surrender of keys was not involuntary
Whether inventory was a pretext for investigatory search / inevitable discovery	Inventory was a caretaking administrative function under standardized policy; gun would inevitably have been discovered once keys became available	Search was pretextual; deputies announced intent to search for illegal items before articulating towing grounds, so inventory was investigative	Court: Inventory was consistent with standardized MCSO procedures and caretaking rationale; inevitable discovery and lawful inventory uphold search

Key Cases Cited

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory searches of impounded vehicles are a caretaking exception to the warrant requirement)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (lawful standardized procedures for inventories guard against pretextual rummaging)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (police policies must limit discretion to avoid pretextual inventories)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings: accept trial court factual findings if supported; review legal conclusion de novo)
U.S. v. Duguay, 93 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 1996) (distinguishing impoundment and inventory functions; impoundment may be community-caretaking)
Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (1988) (state bears burden to justify warrantless search under exception)
State v. Mesa, 87 Ohio St.3d 105 (1999) (inventory exception permits administrative search after lawful impoundment)
State v. Leak, 145 Ohio St.3d 165 (2016) (discussing community-caretaking authority to seize vehicles that impede traffic or are unsafe)