2016 Ohio 2894
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Trooper Keener stopped Jamie Banks-Harvey for speeding; she lacked a valid driver's license and was handcuffed and placed in the cruiser after a felony warrant was confirmed.
- While Keener spoke with passengers, he testified he saw a gel capsule on the vehicle floorboard he believed was heroin; another trooper (O'Neal) later reported seeing the capsule as well.
- Keener removed Banks-Harvey's purse from the vehicle after arrest and searched it, finding heroin, cocaine, needles, and a glass pipe.
- Banks-Harvey moved to suppress; the trial court rejected probable-cause-based automobile-exception theories but denied suppression under inevitable discovery (automobile exception) because O'Neal had observed the gel capsule.
- Banks-Harvey pled no contest and appealed the suppression ruling, arguing inevitable discovery did not apply; the state asserted inevitable discovery, inventory-search justification, and that the evidence would have been found at the jail.
- The appellate majority affirmed, rejecting inevitable-discovery via the automobile exception but holding the search lawful as an inventory search under Highway Patrol standardized procedures; one judge dissented, arguing (1) the record lacked a credited policy and (2) the policy, as described, improperly extends searches under Arizona v. Gant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence in purse was admissible via inevitable discovery under the automobile exception | Troopers would have discovered the gel capsule and then lawfully searched the vehicle and purse | State did not show an alternate investigation was underway or that discovery was inevitable | Reversed for this rationale — state failed to prove inevitable discovery via automobile exception |
| Whether the search was a valid inventory search permitting seizure of contraband | Inventory procedures justified searching arrestee's belongings incident to incarceration | Search was a pretextual evidentiary search (and, per dissent, conflicted with Gant) | Upheld — search was a reasonable inventory search under Highway Patrol standardized procedures |
| Whether officer testimony alone sufficed to establish an inventory policy | Testimony of Trooper Keener described an established written policy followed in practice | Banks-Harvey argued the written policy was not introduced and trial court did not credit the testimony | Majority: unrebutted testimony was sufficient to show standardized procedure; dissent disagreed |
| Whether the inventory practice conflicts with Gant (limits on searches incident to arrest) | State: inventory exception and standardized procedure justify the search regardless of Gant | Defendant/dissent: purse was inaccessible (handcuffed in cruiser); searching for contraband exceeds Gant's limits | Majority: inventory exception controls here; dissent: policy effectively extends Gant and would render search unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 1988) (warrantless-search rule and state's burden to justify exceptions)
- State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio 1985) (inevitable-discovery doctrine adopted under Ohio law)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (federal inevitable-discovery standard)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory-search exception rationale)
- Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1983) (permitting search of arrestee's personal effects as routine inventory)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (inventory searches judged by reasonableness and standardized procedures)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventory searches must follow standardized procedures and not be pretextual)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits search-incident-to-arrest authority when arrestee cannot access the vehicle)