State v. Greeno
2014 Ohio 4718
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Suspects, including Greeno, were under surveillance for months for meth manufacturing at 659 Halcyon Ave., McConnelsville.
- Warrants for unlawful purchase of pseudoephedrine had been issued in Fairfield County Municipal Court (Greeno 2012; co-defendant 2012).
- On Jan. 23, 2013, police sought a search warrant for the Halcyon address; the warrant was not signed by a judge.
- Greeno and co-defendant were arrested on outstanding Fairfield County warrants and taken to Morgan County Jail for questioning.
- An inventory search of the vehicle was conducted at impound, revealing an envelope addressed to Greeno at a different Morgan County address.
- Greeno moved to suppress; the trial court suppressed the Halcyon search but denied the suppression motion regarding the Mountville search, and Greeno appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the vehicle inventory search was proper. | State argues inventory search was conducted in good faith under routine policy. | Greeno contends no standardized policy was shown; search was pretext. | Inventory search valid; conducted under established routine and plain-view discovery supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hathman, 65 Ohio St.3d 403 (1992) (inventory searches require standardized procedures and good faith)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory searches of lawfully impounded vehicles per standard procedures)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (opening containers requires a standardized policy during inventory)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (limits on opening containers during inventory)
- State v. Flynn, 2006-Ohio-6683 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d) (reasserts need for evidence of policy and routine practices)