State v. Curry, 2022 Ohio 627

Officer Pitts stopped Andre Curry’s 2019 Honda Civic for alleged illegal window tint and ordered occupants out after alleged furtive movements; occupants were handcuffed.
Pitts testified he smelled both burnt marijuana and the odor of raw marijuana coming from the passenger compartment and specifically from the closed trunk; he had training distinguishing raw vs. burnt marijuana.
A small amount of raw marijuana was found in the passenger compartment; no marijuana was found in the trunk, but a firearm was recovered there during a warrantless trunk search.
Curry moved to suppress the firearm as the product of an unconstitutional, warrantless trunk search; the trial court granted the motion and stated it found all testimony credible but concluded the trunk search exceeded the scope of the stop.
The State appealed, arguing the automobile exception applied because Pitts’s credible odor-based testimony provided probable cause to search the trunk; the appellate majority reversed, holding the trial court misapplied the law.
The appellate court limited review to issues raised in Curry’s suppression motion and concluded Curry waived other arguments (including the lawfulness of the stop) raised later.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probable cause existed under the automobile exception to search the trunk based on officer’s detection of raw-marijuana odor	Officer’s training and testimony that he smelled raw marijuana from the trunk gave objective probable cause to search the trunk	Officer disputed any smell; trial court found suppression appropriate because search exceeded scope of the stop	Appellate court: trial court credited officer’s testimony but misapplied law; odor of raw marijuana from trunk can provide probable cause to search trunk — suppression reversed
Whether additional suppression grounds (e.g., legality of the stop) could be raised on appeal	State: Curry failed to raise those grounds in his written motion and waived them; review limited to grounds raised below	Curry advanced additional legal and factual challenges on appeal (including stop lawfulness)	Appellate court: those additional arguments were waived; review limited to grounds preserved in the motion to suppress

United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (establishes automobile-exception framework and scope tied to places contraband may be hidden)
State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (2000) (odor of marijuana by qualified person establishes probable cause to search vehicle)
State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (2006) (odor of burnt marijuana in passenger compartment, standing alone, does not justify warrantless trunk search)
State v. Vega, 154 Ohio St.3d 569 (2018) (recognizes Moore principle regarding odor detection by qualified persons)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable subject to established exceptions)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of appellate review for suppression motions; trial court as factfinder)
City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216 (1988) (defendant must raise specific grounds in motion to suppress to preserve appellate review)
United States v. Elliott, 107 F.3d 810 (10th Cir. 1997) (scope-of-consent/stop issues cited by trial court)