State v. Garrett
123 N.E.3d 327
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Officers from a Dayton narcotics task force responded to complaints of drug sales at 607 Groveland Ave.; resident list named "Jenkins." Officers located an open front door while driving by and approached to make contact.
- Garrett answered the door and said Jenkins was not home and that Garrett lived there (contrary to lease rules); officers smelled marijuana at the doorway.
- Another occupant, later identified as Rodney Shaw, was present and had an outstanding arrest warrant. While speaking with Garrett at the threshold (outside the doorway), officers observed a scale and a white rock‑like substance (apparent crack cocaine) on a plastic storage bin about five feet from the door.
- Officers entered the apartment, arrested Shaw, performed pat‑downs of Shaw and Garrett, and during a subsequent pat‑down of Garrett found crack cocaine on his person; officers also lifted junk mail covering the bin and found additional drugs beneath it.
- Garrett moved to suppress; trial court denied the motion. He pleaded no contest to possession of cocaine and appealed, arguing unlawful entry/search and improper pat‑downs. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of opening screen door/entry and seizure under plain view | State: officers were lawfully at doorway, saw contraband in plain view, and exigent circumstances (risk of destruction) justified entry and seizure | Garrett: opening screen door and entering without a warrant (and without proof Shaw resided there) violated Fourth Amendment and Steagald prohibits using an arrest warrant for a third‑party residence | Court: plain view met all three prongs and exigent circumstances justified entry to seize items visible from doorway; entry/seizure of items plainly visible was lawful |
| Seizure of contraband not visible until mail was lifted | State: the recovery followed lawful entry and was related evidence | Garrett: lifting mail was a search beyond plain view, requiring a warrant | Court: items beneath junk mail were not in plain view; their seizure required a warrant and must be suppressed |
| Pat‑down searches of Garrett | State: officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion (drug complaints, observed drugs, known warrant for Shaw, high‑crime area, smell of marijuana) to pat Garrett for weapons; arrest‑incident search justified second pat‑down after probable cause arose | Garrett: multiple pat‑downs without individualized suspicion violated Terry | Court: first pat‑down was justified by officer safety concerns in drug context; second pat‑down was authorized as a search incident to lawful arrest because probable cause existed prior to that search |
| Applicability of Steagald/Payton to arrest of nonresident inside third‑party home | Garrett: Steagald requires a search warrant to enter third‑party home to arrest person named in arrest warrant | State: officers did more than seek to arrest; they observed contraband in plain view and exigency existed | Court: Steagald would bar a warrantless entry solely to execute an arrest warrant at a third‑party residence, but here plain view plus exigency distinguished the case; entry was upheld for plain‑view seizure under totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (pat‑down for officer safety justified by reasonable, individualized suspicion)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (arrest warrants do not automatically authorize warrantless entry into a third‑party home)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) (arrest warrant alone does not permit entry into third‑party residence absent consent or exigency)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain‑view doctrine requirements for warrantless seizure)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (overnight guest has expectation of privacy in host’s home)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (warrantless searches of homes presumptively unreasonable)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (incriminating character of object immediately apparent can be judged by officer’s experience)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (search incident to lawful arrest permits full search of arrestee)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) (probable cause to arrest exists when a reasonably prudent person would believe a crime was committed and the defendant committed it)