2017 Ohio 8436
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Officer Wehage stopped Sandra Eversole after observing a marked‑lanes violation and conducted field sobriety tests that led to an OVI arrest.
- Eversole was handcuffed and placed in the rear of the patrol car while Officer Wehage returned to and searched her vehicle for evidence of impairment.
- During the warrantless search he found drug paraphernalia and heroin in Eversole’s purse; she was indicted for possession of heroin.
- Eversole moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was not authorized under the search‑incident‑to‑arrest exception as clarified in Arizona v. Gant.
- The trial court denied suppression; Eversole pleaded no contest, was sentenced, and appealed.
- The Third District reversed, holding the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked particularized reason to believe the vehicle contained evidence of the OVI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a vehicle search incident to an OVI arrest was lawful under Gant | State: search incident to a lawful OVI arrest was permissible to look for evidence of impairment | Eversole: Gant requires either reachability or particularized reason to believe vehicle contains evidence; neither existed here | Reversed: officer lacked particularized, case‑specific reason to believe vehicle contained evidence of OVI, so search was unconstitutional |
| Whether an agency policy to search vehicles on every OVI arrest is a lawful basis | State: standard policy supports the search practice | Eversole: blanket policy cannot supply the constitutional particularization Gant requires | Held: departmental policy alone is not a sufficient, particularized basis under Gant |
| Quantum of suspicion required under Gant’s “reasonable to believe” second prong | State: nature of OVI often supplies basis to search (some courts adopt categorical approach) | Eversole: Gant requires case‑specific, totality‑of‑circumstances (reasonable suspicion) showing | Held: court adopts totality‑of‑circumstances/reasonableness approach; OVI alone does not always supply reason to search |
| Whether officer’s general experience with OVI cases can alone justify a search | State: officer’s training/experience supports belief evidence might be in vehicle | Eversole: general experience without case‑specific facts is insufficient | Held: officer’s general experience cannot alone justify search; must point to particularized indicators in the specific stop |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (search incident to arrest of vehicle allowed only if arrestee within reaching distance or reasonable to believe vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (search incident to arrest limited to arrestee’s person and area within immediate control)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (permitted contemporaneous search of passenger compartment after custodial arrest of vehicle occupant; later limited by Gant)
- Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004) (vehicle search upheld where defendant’s arrest and facts supported finding of narcotics on person/vehicle)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (exclusionary rule applies to state prosecutions)
- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) (landmark authority for exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment)