State v. Johnson, 2012 Ohio 4082

In January 2011, Springfield police stopped a vehicle in which defendant was a passenger, seeking the driver’s missing teenage son who had an outstanding warrant.
Officers believed the son might be in the car, and the grandmother had reported him missing; defendant’s son was not in the vehicle.
The driver signaled information to the officers; Defendant was removed from the vehicle for safety.
The driver stated that Defendant “has a drug problem” and that she had just taken him to buy heroin, which was found under a cup after an officer looked there.
Defendant was indicted for possession of less than one gram of heroin; he moved to suppress the evidence, which the trial court denied; a jury convicted him and sentenced him to nine months.
On appeal, counsel filed an Anders brief noting no meritorious issues; the trial court’s ruling and the underlying conduct were reviewed for plain error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion to suppress was properly overruled	State: stop was permissible under reasonable suspicion; defendant had no privacy interest	Johnson lacked standing to challenge the search since he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle or its contents	Motion overruled; no arguable merit; affirmed

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1997) (police may order occupants from a vehicle during a traffic stop)
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977) (permissible for officers to order occupants to exit a vehicle during a stop)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (passenger standing requires a legitimate privacy interest)
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (standing to challenge a search requires a protected privacy interest)