Background - Ferrell was a backseat passenger during a traffic stop; driver consented to search the vehicle. - Officer Burton asked Ferrell to step out and whether he had anything in his pockets; Ferrell said "no" and consented when Burton asked if another officer could "check." - Officer Bowen searched Ferrell's pockets, then looked into his socks and found a white baggie; Bowen placed Ferrell in handcuffs after finding the item. - Ferrell admitted the sock item was heroin and later admitted to having a hypodermic "rig" in his backpack (in the car). - Ferrell moved to suppress the physical evidence and post-search statements as violating the Fourth Amendment (search exceeded consent) and the Fifth Amendment (no Miranda warnings during custodial interrogation). - The trial court denied suppression; the appellate majority reversed and remanded, finding the sock search exceeded the scope of consent and Ferrell's post-handcuff admissions were custodial statements made without Miranda warnings. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Whether officer lawfully frisked/search of Ferrell for weapons | Ferrell: no specific/articulable suspicion for a Terry frisk; unlawful removal/search | State: court concluded search was consensual; officer testified she did not suspect a weapon | No need to resolve Terry issue—trial court found the encounter consensual and officer denied suspecting a weapon (sub-argument lacked merit) | | Whether consent to search pockets reasonably included searching socks | Ferrell: consent was limited to pockets; searching socks exceeded scope of consent | State/trial court: totality of circumstances showed consent to be searched generally | Reversed: objective-reasonableness standard; asking to "check" after questioning about pockets did not authorize sock search—evidence in sock suppressed | | Whether Ferrell's post-search admissions required Miranda warnings | Ferrell: handcuffed and questioned—custodial interrogation requiring Miranda; statements inadmissible | State: argued public/officer safety exception applies (not raised below) | Reversed: placement in handcuffs and questioning rendered Ferrell in custody; no public-safety exception shown; admissions suppressed | ### Key Cases Cited Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Terry frisk standard for officer safety) Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (scope of consent judged by objective reasonableness) Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires warnings) New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (public-safety exception to Miranda) State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (burden on state to prove consent voluntary) State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 (adopted Williams test for Quarles/public-safety exception) State v. Arrington, 96 Ohio App.3d 375 (consent scope does not include containers irrelevant to the search objective) State v. Rodriguez, 83 Ohio App.3d 829 (consent to "look in car" does not authorize intrusive dismantling/search beyond reasonable expectation) * State v. Strozier, 172 Ohio App.3d 780 (public-safety exception applied to questioning about needles posing officer risk)