2019 Ohio 270
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plainclothes Mentor police conducted surveillance in a known drug/prostitution area near an inn, McDonald’s, and a BP on May 31, 2017.
- Sgt. Slovenkay observed Charlcie Galasso walk from the inn to a Mazda at the pump, exit the passenger side, then briefly re-enter the car and make a quick contact with driver Matthew Huber at the rear; Galasso then walked back toward the inn.
- Officers stopped Galasso; she admitted and produced a baggie of crack cocaine from her sleeve and was arrested. At the BP, the vehicle’s owner (Lorraine Lancaster) was detained for an open container.
- Huber was detained, Mirandized, and made unsolicited statements; officers searched the Mazda without a warrant and found cocaine baggies, drug residue, marijuana, an Exacto knife, and cash.
- Huber moved to suppress; the trial court denied the motion. He pleaded no contest to one trafficking count and appealed the suppression ruling. The majority affirmed; one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for warrantless automobile search | Officers had probable cause based on observed suspected hand-to-hand exchange in a known drug area, Galasso’s admission and possession of drugs, suspicious behavior, and officer training/experience | Sgt. Slovenkay could not actually see an exchange; re-enactment testimony raised doubts about visibility and line-of-sight, so no probable cause existed | Court held totality of circumstances gave officers probable cause to search the car and admitted the evidence |
| Inventory-search exception | State did not rely on or claim an inventory search; not applicable | N/A | Court agreed inventory exception did not apply |
| Consent to search | State did not assert consent from owner (Lancaster) or driver (Huber) | N/A | Court held consent exception was not asserted and did not apply |
| Plain-view exception | State did not base search on plain-view evidence (only plain view item was open alcohol) | N/A | Court held plain-view exception did not authorize the search |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnside v. Ohio, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard for appellate review of suppression: accept trial court factual findings if supported; review legal conclusions de novo)
- Fanning v. State, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (1982) (trial-court factual findings entitled to deference on appeal)
- Leak v. Ohio, 145 Ohio St.3d 165 (2016) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, subject to defined exceptions)
- Mills v. Ohio, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (automobile exception requires probable cause that vehicle contains seizable evidence plus exigent circumstances)
- Kessler v. Ohio, 53 Ohio St.2d 204 (1978) (definition of probable cause for automobile searches)
- Bowling Green v. Godwin, 110 Ohio St.3d 58 (2006) (probable cause evaluated under the totality of the circumstances)