State v. Foster
2017 Ohio 4036
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Around 3:00 p.m. on Oct. 16, 2015, Officer Clarkson observed Daniel Foster turn left at an intersection and stopped him, suspecting he ran a red light; dash-cam recorded the officer later telling Foster he saw him "flying through the light."
- Officer check revealed an outstanding capias for Foster; officers handcuffed him, patted him down (recovering cash), and placed him in the cruiser.
- Officers then searched Foster’s parked Suburban for about an hour and found marijuana, a scale, and a firearm; the vehicle was later driven to police headquarters and released to Foster’s wife that evening.
- Foster moved to suppress the money and contraband, arguing the traffic stop and the warrantless vehicle search were unlawful; the state defended the stop as supported by reasonable suspicion and the search as either an inventory search or based on probable cause (odor of marijuana).
- The trial court found the stop lawful and denied the suppression motion in full, relying on a department Procedure (12.265) to justify an inventory search; Foster pleaded no contest and was convicted; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop | Officer had reasonable suspicion (and even probable cause) that Foster ran a red light | Stop was unsupported; Foster lawfully entered and turned on a green before it changed | Stop was lawful; competent, credible evidence supported officer's account and reasonable suspicion (assignment 1 overruled) |
| Lawfulness of warrantless vehicle search as an inventory search | Search complied with Cincinnati PD Procedure 12.265 authorizing inventories of vehicles "taken into custody" | Procedure was limited to impoundments under the municipal code; here officers did not follow impoundment restrictions and allowed retrieval arrangements | Search was not a lawful inventory under department procedure and municipal code; suppression of vehicle contraband required (assignment 2 sustained) |
| Alternative justification: probable cause-based search | Officer smelled marijuana, giving probable cause to search | Officer did not document or testify consistently about odor; trial court did not decide probable-cause issue | Court remanded to allow determination whether the search was independently supported by probable cause (trial court must address this) |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1979) (traffic-stop Fourth Amendment standard)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (Orangeburg rights and standards for stops)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (U.S. 1975) (reasonable-suspicion standard)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1973) (community-caretaking exception and inventory searches)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory-search reasonableness when pursuant to standard procedures)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventory searches must follow standardized procedures and not be pretextual)
- State v. Leak, 145 Ohio St.3d 165 (Ohio 2016) (inventory-search standards under Ohio law and Opperman)