State v. Banks-Harvey
96 N.E.3d 262
Ohio2018Background
- Traffic stop for speeding; driver Jamie Banks-Harvey was arrested on an outstanding warrant and placed in the trooper's cruiser; her purse remained in the vehicle owned by her boyfriend, Charles Hall.
- Trooper retrieved the purse from Hall's car, placed it on the cruiser hood, and searched it; he found pills, needles, and capsules; evidence led to drug-possession charges against Banks-Harvey.
- Trial court rejected the state's justifications (search-incident-to-arrest, plain view, inventory search) but denied suppression on inevitable-discovery grounds; appellant pled no contest and appealed.
- Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis that the trooper acted pursuant to a standard Highway Patrol policy and the search was a valid inventory search.
- Ohio Supreme Court granted review and held the warrantless retrieval of the purse from the car, based solely on an internal policy that effects "go with" an arrestee, did not justify the search; evidence was suppressed and convictions vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Banks-Harvey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrieval/search of purse qualified as an inventory search (inventory-search exception) | Policy alone cannot justify warrantless retrieval of purse from a protected place; purse was not lawfully in police custody so inventory exception does not apply | Search was an inventory search pursuant to Highway Patrol policy; inventory searches are administrative and reasonable | Held: Policy alone insufficient; purse was taken from a Fourth Amendment–protected location and had not lawfully come into custody, so inventory exception did not apply |
| Whether exclusionary rule should be avoided under inevitable-discovery doctrine | Trooper’s unlawful retrieval was primary cause of discovery; state cannot show by preponderance that contraband would have been discovered lawfully | Contraband would inevitably have been discovered via subsequent search of vehicle (automobile exception) or booking inventory at jail | Held: State failed to prove inevitability; local officer’s search was likely prompted by knowledge of trooper’s discovery, so inevitable-discovery does not apply |
| Whether exclusionary rule should be avoided under good-faith reliance on department policy | Officer’s reliance on policy retrieving effects from vehicle was not lawful; policy does not authorize intrusion into protected places absent independent legal basis | Trooper acted in objectively reasonable good faith pursuant to Highway Patrol policy; search was not pretextual | Held: Good-faith exception inapplicable; written or unwritten policy cannot justify objectively unreasonable intrusion into a protected place |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits searches incident to vehicle occupant's arrest when arrestee is secured and not within reaching distance)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory-search exception for impounded vehicles to protect property and police)
- Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983) (inventory search of arrestee's bag at station house reasonable as caretaking procedure)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches pursuant to standardized procedures are reasonable)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (automobile exception: warrantless searches of vehicles allowed when probable cause exists)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (establishes inevitable-discovery exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for reliance on invalid warrants)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good-faith analysis and limits on exclusionary-rule application)