State v. Foster, 91 N.E.3d 98

Foster was stopped for traffic violations; officer Kopchak learned Foster’s license was suspended and the vehicle was to be towed and impounded.
Cleveland Police tow/inventory policy instructed officers to open and describe closed, unlocked containers found in impounded vehicles.
While inventorying the car, Det. Kopchak picked up an Arizona Iced Tea can, found it unusually heavy, unscrewed it, observed white powder, and used a narcotics wipe that tested positive.
Foster was indicted for possession of heroin and possession of criminal tools; he moved to suppress the physical evidence and statements from the stop/search.
The trial court suppressed the evidence, concluding the officer’s actions demonstrated investigatory intent (not a bona fide inventory) and that a warrant was required to open the can.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that despite a written policy permitting opening containers, the officer’s conduct (shaking, noting unusual weight, swabbing for narcotics, examining floor debris) showed an evidentiary search rather than an administrative inventory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether opening a closed container during an impound inventory was a valid inventory search	State: officer followed written, standardized inventory policy permitting opening closed unlocked containers, so search was reasonable and in good faith	Foster: officer opened the can with investigatory intent (not routine inventory); evidence should be suppressed	Court: held search was investigatory, not a bona fide inventory; suppression affirmed
Whether evidence obtained from the opened can and related statements must be suppressed	State: fruits of a valid inventory search are admissible	Foster: fruits of investigatory, warrantless search are inadmissible	Court: suppressed evidence as fruit of unconstitutional search

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (establishes inventory-search exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory searches reasonable if in good faith pursuant to standardized procedures)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory searches must not be a ruse for general rummaging; opening containers limited by policy)
State v. Hathman, 604 N.E.2d 743 (Ohio) (closed containers may be opened during inventory only under standardized policy)
State v. Burnside, 797 N.E.2d 71 (Ohio) (standard of appellate review for suppression motions; mixed question of law and fact)
State v. Caponi, 466 N.E.2d 551 (Ohio) (search with investigatory intent is not an inventory search)