State v. Camp, 2014 Ohio 4498

On Nov. 20, 2013 police stopped a van for a traffic violation; driver was arrested for driving under suspension and an outstanding felony warrant. Camp was a rear-seat passenger.
Officers removed the passengers and conducted identity checks; a drug-detection canine was requested to perform a free-air sniff of the vehicle.
Officers conducted a protective pat-down of Camp; the pat-down produced no contraband.
A drug dog alerted to a child’s coat in the back seat identified as Camp’s; drug scales were found in the coat pocket.
After the canine alert and coat search, officers searched Camp and discovered a loaded heroin syringe in her pants pocket. Camp moved to suppress arguing the person search was unconstitutional.
Trial court granted the suppression motion; the State appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding consent and inevitable discovery/supporting probable cause justified admission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Terry pat-downs of Camp justified?	Officers had reasonable concerns (nervous occupants, high-drug area)	No articulable facts showing Camp was armed/dangerous	Court found initial pat-downs occurred but were not the dispositive basis for admitting the syringe; pat-downs revealed nothing incriminating
Was Camp’s consent to search her person voluntary?	Consent was voluntary — no coercion, not in custody, asked and granted	Consent was not established in suppression ruling	Court held totality of circumstances supports voluntariness; State met burden to show consent was voluntary
Would the syringe inevitably have been discovered (or been found in a search incident to arrest) after canine alerted?	Canine alert gave probable cause to search vehicle; coat with paraphernalia belonged to Camp making arrest likely; search-incident-to-arrest would reveal syringe	Suppression court found no articulable facts to justify searches	Court held canine alert produced probable cause; arrest for paraphernalia and search-incident-to-arrest made discovery inevitable; suppression reversed

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry frisk standard: officer must have reasonable fear for safety)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent validity judged under totality of circumstances)
State v. Lozada, 92 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio: limits on pat-downs before placing person in patrol car)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (dog sniffs of vehicle during lawful stop are not a search)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (dog sniff precedent on luggage and expectations of privacy)
State v. Perkins, 18 Ohio St.3d 193 (Ohio recognizes inevitable discovery exception)
State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (prosecution must prove consent was voluntary)
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (scope of search incident to arrest)