State v. Foster
2015 Ohio 3401
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Officers responded to a residential alarm at 1224 ½ East Market Street and found the front door cracked open and an unsecured garage door.
- Officers entered without a warrant to clear the house for possible intruders; while inside they smelled marijuana and observed drug paraphernalia.
- In a bathroom closet, an officer pulled down a small grocery bag from a shelf, untied it, and saw a large quantity of crack cocaine.
- Officers then secured the residence, called the drug task force, and obtained a search warrant; the affidavit relied in part on the cocaine seen in the bag.
- Foster was indicted for possession of cocaine; he moved to suppress the evidence. Trial court denied the motion; Foster pleaded no contest to an amended count and appealed the suppression ruling.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the warrantless opening of the bag was unlawful and the inevitable-discovery and related arguments could not rehabilitate the evidence because the warrant relied on the tainted observation.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Foster's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were officers justified in entering the home without a warrant under exigent-circumstances (alarm/intruder)? | Alarm and unsecured entry justified a protective sweep to check for persons. | Entry/search exceeded permissible scope and required a warrant for non-life-safety searches. | Entry for a sweep was supported by some credible evidence of exigency; the protective sweep itself was permissible. |
| Was opening the small grocery bag during the protective sweep lawful? | (Implicit) evidence observed during sweep justified further investigation. | Opening a container too small to conceal a person was beyond the sweep’s scope and required a warrant. | Opening the bag was an unlawful warrantless search; it exceeded the scope of a sweep for persons. |
| Can the cocaine be admitted under the inevitable discovery doctrine because officers intended to obtain a warrant? | Evidence would have been inevitably discovered because officers had probable cause and intended to seek a warrant. | Officers proceeded despite knowing they needed a warrant; inevitable-discovery cannot be based solely on the fact they could or would have obtained a warrant. | The inevitable-discovery exception does not apply where the government’s theory is merely that it could have or would have obtained a warrant; admission denied. |
| Was the subsequently obtained warrant and seizure salvaged because it was based in part on the bag’s contents? | Warrant legitimizes later seizure. | Warrant was tainted because it incorporated information obtained from the illegal opening of the bag. | Warrant was tainted by the illegally observed evidence; Murray/Carter bar using a warrant based on fruits of an illegal search. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (privacy and warrant requirement; searches without warrant presumptively unreasonable)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (burden on government to show exigent circumstances for warrantless home entry)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (exigency includes need to protect life or avoid serious injury)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (scope of limited searches and reasonableness standard)
- Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (exclusionary rule and fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (warrant based on information wholly unconnected to illegal search may validate later discovery)
- U.S. v. Griffin, 502 F.2d 959 (inevitable-discovery cannot be invoked simply because police intended to obtain a warrant)
- State v. Carter, 69 Ohio St.3d 57 (Ohio: warrants based on fruits of illegal search cannot rehabilitate evidence)
- State v. Pearson, 114 Ohio App.3d 153 (mere probability a warrant would have been issued does not satisfy inevitable-discovery)