State v. Frazee, 2015 Ohio 4786

Frazee was lawfully arrested on a warrant and wearing a coat; Eversole permitted Frazee to remove the coat for safety before handcuffing and searching him.
Eversole searched Frazee’s person and then searched the coat, discovering a cellophane package containing heroin in Frazee’s coat pocket.
Frazee moved to suppress the heroin as evidence, arguing the coat search was not a valid search incident to arrest.
The trial court granted suppression, finding the coat was not within Frazee’s immediate control at the time of search.
The State appealed, arguing the search fell within the search incident to arrest exception and, alternatively, that the heroin would have been inevitably discovered during jail booking.
The court held the coat search fell within the search incident to arrest or, alternatively, inevitable discovery, reversing and remanding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the coat search was lawful as a search incident to arrest	Frazee’s search of the coat occurred within Frazee’s immediate control during arrest.	The coat was not on Frazee’s person or within his immediate control at the time of the search.	Yes; search incident to arrest applied
Whether the coat was within Frazee’s immediate control at the time of search	Coat was worn by Frazee and thus within his immediate control near the time of arrest.	Arguments relying on distance or non-accessibility negate control.	Yes; coat worn by Frazee was in immediate control
Whether the heroin would have been inevitably discovered during jail booking	Inevitable discovery doctrine would admit the evidence.	State failed to prove the inventory/search procedure would reveal the coat contents.	Yes; inevitable discovery applies

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (establishes search incident to arrest for area within immediate control)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits vehicle searches after arrest to when arrestee within reach or under applicable exception)
State v. Adams, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3954 (Ohio Supreme Court 2015) (extends right to search incident to arrest to items the arrestee had near time of arrest)
State v. Combs, 2008-Ohio-2883 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22346) (inventory searches of arrestees are reasonable; inevitable discovery can apply)
State v. Sharpe, 2000 WL 875342 (2d Dist. Harrison No. 99 CA 510) (backpack search near time of arrest supports search incident to arrest)