2015 Ohio 4115
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Riverside police received multiple tips over ~2–3 weeks that a man called “Wheezy” and a woman (Nikky Caddell) were driving a brown/tan rental Kia and staying at the Microtel; tips said Wheezy was possibly armed and selling/possessing heroin and crack. Some tips were anonymous; later callers identified themselves as relatives.
- On Oct. 30, 2013 officers located a brown/tan Kia at the Microtel; Sgt. Close observed a man (Johnson) exit the car carrying a backpack and detained him. A pat-down and search of the backpack revealed no weapon.
- Johnson initially refused to identify himself; LEADS check later showed outstanding warrants and officers arrested him. Caddell was located in a motel room and taken to the hospital for heroin withdrawal.
- Because the Kia was a rental and the driver (Johnson) was arrested, officers decided to impound the vehicle under the Riverside PD tow policy and conducted an inventory search before towing.
- The inventory search uncovered numerous gel capsules suspected to be heroin, a bag of suspected marijuana, and packages suspected to be cocaine; no warrant was obtained. Johnson moved to suppress; the trial court denied the motion and he pled no contest to possession of >100g heroin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the warrantless search of the Kia justified under the automobile exception? | State: tips + observation created probable cause to search vehicle. | Johnson: tips only gave reasonable suspicion, not probable cause; no plain view or dog sniff; automobile exception unjustified. | Court: majority rejected automobile exception—no probable cause shown. Concurring judge disagreed. |
| Was the impoundment and inventory search lawful (standardized policy / authority to tow)? | State: vehicle lawfully impounded because driver (Johnson) was arrested; Riverside PD tow policy authorizes towing when driver arrested and mandates inventories. | Johnson: police exceeded authority because he wasn’t shown to be the vehicle’s operator and Microtel had no written tow request/policy. | Court: impoundment lawful under PD policy (driver observed exiting vehicle => operator); inventory search valid; evidence admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may perform an investigatory stop based on reasonable articulable suspicion)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999) (if car is readily mobile and probable cause exists, police may search without a warrant)
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (1996) (automobile exception does not require separate exigency beyond mobility and probable cause)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (discussing automobile exception under Ohio law)
- Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259 (1982) (immobilization does not necessarily negate automobile-exception justification)
- State v. Hathman, 65 Ohio St.3d 403 (1992) (closed containers in impounded vehicles may be opened only if department policy permits)
- State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (1995) (appellate review of suppression: trial court findings of fact entitled to deference)