State v. Bryner
2018 Ohio 3215
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Around 12:40 a.m., police responded to a motel disturbance and found five people outside a room, including Janice Bryner.
- Officer Sabo checked identifications; one person had outstanding drug-related warrants and was arrested.
- A car parked in the motel lot was identified as associated with the arrested person; Bryner remained on scene with other officers.
- Officer Sabo retrieved a trained narcotics dog, walked the dog around the parked, unoccupied car in the motel lot, and the dog alerted on the passenger side.
- Officer Sabo searched the car, found Bryner’s purse in the back seat, and discovered pills and drug paraphernalia; Bryner acknowledged the purse was hers.
- Bryner moved to suppress; the trial court denied the motion, she pled no contest, was placed on community control, and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Bryner's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers lacked reasonable suspicion to continue detaining Bryner after identities were checked | Sabo should have ended detention once identifications were confirmed; no reasonable suspicion to continue | Any continued presence was lawful and, in any event, not the source of the evidence | Court found no prejudice from any extended detention; suppression denied |
| Whether a dog sniff of the parked motel car violated the Fourth Amendment | The dog sniff was an investigatory extension unrelated to the disturbance and vehicle; no basis for sniff | Dog sniff is not a search if the officer and dog are lawfully present where sniff occurs | Court held dog sniff lawful because officer and dog were lawfully present in the motel parking lot |
| Whether the dog sniff required reasonable suspicion or probable cause before it occurred | Sniff required objective basis tying car to illegal activity | Dog sniffs are not searches under the Fourth Amendment and need only that the canine team be lawfully present | Court held no pre-sniff suspicion required; sniff produced probable cause when dog alerted |
| Whether the alert provided probable cause to search the car and purse (closed container) | Even if alert occurred, it did not support probable cause to search a closed container (purse) | An alert to drugs inside a vehicle gives probable cause to search the vehicle and containers that could conceal contraband | Court held the dog’s alert provided probable cause to search the car and purse; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (probable cause to search a vehicle extends to containers that may conceal the object of the search)
- Welch v. Ohio, 18 Ohio St.3d 88 (Ohio 1985) (officer may search every part of a vehicle and its contents that may logically conceal the object of the search)
- United States v. Diaz, 25 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 1994) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in motel parking lot; dog sniff in lot does not implicate Fourth Amendment)
- Perkins v. Ohio, 18 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio 1985) (exclusionary rule excludes evidence that flows from constitutional violation but not evidence discovered by independent means)
- United States v. Reed, 141 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 1998) (canine team must be lawfully present where sniff occurs)