State v. Fletcher, 2017 Ohio 1006

Background

On Feb. 20, 2016, Officer Dearing responded to a tip about suspected narcotics activity at the Green Crest Motel (Room 6). He encountered three vehicles outside; a passenger (Davis) in one admitted to having meth in his car.
Dearing approached Room 6 for a "knock and talk." The door was ajar (~12 inches); as a man (Donnie) moved toward the door, Dearing pushed it fully open to visually scan the room for officer safety and saw two women (appellant Deanna Fletcher and daughter Dezaraya).
Donnie and appellant consented in writing to searches of the motel room and a silver GMC truck; officers then seized methamphetamine (total 17.4 g), drug paraphernalia, Clonazepam pills, cash, and firearms found in the truck.
Appellant was indicted for aggravated trafficking (R.C. 2925.03), aggravated possession (R.C. 2925.11), and misdemeanor possession of Clonazepam; a suppression motion challenging the warrantless door intrusion was denied.
After a bench trial, appellant was convicted on all counts (forfeiture specs denied) and sentenced; on appeal she challenged (1) the denial of suppression, (2) sufficiency/weight of the evidence, and (3) failure to merge allied offenses.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fletcher)	Held
Whether officer’s act of pushing the motel-room door fully open during a knock-and-talk violated the Fourth Amendment	The entry was a limited visual intrusion justified by probable cause and exigent circumstances (officer safety) and thus reasonable	Pushing the threshold constituted an unlawful, warrantless entry absent probable cause and exigency	Court upheld denial of suppression: totality of circumstances gave probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the limited visual intrusion; consent later obtained for the full search
Whether the evidence was sufficient / verdict against manifest weight for trafficking and possession counts	Evidence (17.4 g meth, paraphernalia, multiple baggies, cell phones, admissions, appellant drove husband to procure/deliver meth) supports complicity to trafficking and possession	Appellant argued drugs were on husband’s side of room, contested knowledge/possession, and contested quantity allocation	Court found convictions supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence
Whether possession of Clonazepam was proven	Pills recovered in cooler in shared room, tested as Clonazepam, readily accessible to appellant	Appellant disputed ownership/control	Court held evidence supported conviction for possession of Clonazepam
Whether aggravated trafficking and aggravated possession are allied offenses requiring merger	State relied on separate statutory counts; trial court imposed sentences on both	Appellant asserted offenses arise from same conduct and should merge for sentencing	Appellate court found plain error: offenses are allied (same conduct/animus/import) and remanded for resentencing with state to elect which offense to proceed on

Key Cases Cited

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (knock-and-talks are permissible warrantless police approaches)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless home entry prohibited absent exigent circumstances)
Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (exigent-circumstances doctrine permits warrantless entry when needs of law enforcement are compelling)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (officer safety and prevention of imminent harm can justify warrantless entry)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (consent to search must be voluntary under the totality of the circumstances)
State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (test for allied offenses: conduct, animus, import)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (2010) (merger protects against multiple sentences for allied offenses)
State v. Herring, 94 Ohio St.3d 246 (2002) (complicity may be proven even if indictment is phrased as principal offense)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight review)