State v. Fogel
2012 Ohio 1960
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Trooper stopped Fogel for speeding in a 55 mph zone (77 mph) in Licking County, Ohio.
- While in the patrol car, the trooper detected the odor of raw marijuana on Fogel and Fogel admitted smoking earlier.
- An odor of marijuana also emanated from the vehicle's passenger area; the passenger provided a conflicting account.
- Officer searched the driver’s compartment, found a small amount of marijuana and a large amount of cash, then searched the trunk and recovered four Sony DVD players with scratched UPCs, later deemed stolen.
- Fogel was charged with theft by deception, possessing criminal tools, and tampering with evidence.
- Fogel moved to suppress the evidence; the municipal court denied the motion; Fogel pled no contest and was sentenced; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment. | Fogel argues the search was unconstitutional under Farris. | State argues the search was supported by probable cause/automobile exception due to odor and circumstances. | Search upheld; suppression denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (odor/vehicle search standards; trunk exception limited)
- State v. Whatley, 2011-Ohio-2297 (Ohio App. Dist. 5th Dist. 2011) (odor plus training supported search of vehicle)
- State v. Gonzales, 2009-Ohio-168 (Ohio App. Dist. 6th Dist. 2009) (odor of raw marijuana can give probable cause to search trunk)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio Supreme Court 2000) (automobile exception after probable cause established)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (probable cause to search vehicle compartments)