State v. Fleming, 2020 Ohio 5352

On Oct. 20, 2019 Fleming's pickup was disabled after a multi-vehicle crash and was obstructing a busy intersection in Dayton.
Officer Michael Floyd ordered the truck to be towed under Dayton Police General Order 3.02-6; he told Fleming the truck would be towed but did not tell him an inventory would be done or offer to let him remove property.
The Dayton tow policy requires an inventory of property "left in the vehicle," permits owners to remove property if able, and authorizes opening unlocked containers during inventories.
As Floyd approached the truck he saw through a clear-top aluminum container on the front seat pills and seized and opened the container, discovering heroin- and fentanyl-containing material.
Fleming was indicted for drug possession, moved to suppress the seized evidence, the trial court overruled the motion, Fleming pled no contest to two counts, and appealed the suppression ruling.
The Second District affirmed, holding the tow policy reasonable and the inventory/search performed in good faith; a dissent argued the policy unlawfully permits discretionary, notice-free inventories in non-arrest situations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless inventory/search violated the Fourth Amendment because officer did not offer Fleming an opportunity to remove property	Inventory searches are a valid community‑caretaking exception; officer followed Dayton's standardized tow policy	Officer argues he should have been offered the chance to remove property before inventory; failure renders search unreasonable	Court: Inventory valid; policy's plain meaning does not require an express offer and officer acted in good faith
Whether Dayton's tow policy is unconstitutional for not requiring police to notify owners and permit removal before inventories in non‑arrest situations	Policy is a reasonable, standardized procedure consistent with Ohio law and Supreme Court precedent (Bertine/Opperman)	Policy gives officers unfettered discretion; Ohio should require notice like some states (Mangold, Fulmer)	Court: No persuasive reason to extend Ohio Constitution beyond Fourth Amendment; policy constitutional
Alternate State argument that the item was in plain view	Seizure was proper because contraband was plainly visible when officer approached	Defendant focused on inventory-process defects; challenges seizure	Court: Trial court didn’t rule on plain view; appellate decision rests on inventory ruling and did not reach plain view issue

Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (recognizes community‑caretaking inventory exception for vehicles)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory searches to protect owner's property and police interests are reasonable)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches pursuant to standardized procedures valid; courts need not require less intrusive alternatives)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (inventory-opening of closed containers governed by standardized policy requirement)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (searches without warrant are per se unreasonable subject to established exceptions)
State v. Hathman, 65 Ohio St.3d 403 (1992) (Ohio requires a standardized policy governing opening closed containers during inventories)
State v. Leak, 145 Ohio St.3d 165 (2016) (discusses inventory searches within community‑caretaking doctrine)
State v. Mangold, 82 N.J. 575 (1980) (New Jersey required offering present, able owners a chance to secure property before inventory under state constitution)
State v. Fulmer, 366 Ore. 224 (2019) (Oregon required notice to occupants present before retrieving readily removable belongings under state constitution)