State v. Keyser
2017 Ohio 1182
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Julie Keyser was stopped in a car in a high‑drug-area parking lot; officers approached for a consensual encounter and observed her attempting to exit and bleeding on her right arm.
- Officer Tassone asked about a needle; Keyser (pre‑Miranda) said needles were in a green bag in the vehicle and that they had already used the heroin. She was arrested for drug paraphernalia and drug abuse instruments.
- During a tow inventory/search incident to arrest, officers found a baggie with suspicious residue in Keyser’s wallet. After being Mirandized, Keyser again acknowledged injecting heroin and then admitted the heroin in her wallet was hers.
- At suppression hearing the trial court excluded Keyser’s statements and the needles as obtained in violation of Miranda/Seibert and Farris, but denied suppression of the heroin, finding it was discovered during an inventory/search incident to arrest and not directly from un‑Mirandized statements.
- Keyser pleaded no contest to an amended drug possession count; she appealed only the denial of suppression of the heroin under the Self‑Incrimination Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
- The Ninth District affirmed, holding the heroin was not the direct product of un‑Mirandized custodial statements and therefore was admissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Keyser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether heroin must be suppressed as "fruit" of un‑Mirandized custodial statements under Ohio Const. art. I, § 10 | The heroin was found during an inventory/search incident to arrest and not discovered as a direct result of un‑Mirandized statements, so it is admissible | The heroin is the direct fruit of Keyser’s pre‑ and post‑Miranda incriminating statements and should be excluded under State v. Farris | Court held heroin admissible: not the direct result of pre‑Miranda statements; Farris inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (addressing admissibility of successive unwarned and warned statements in Miranda context)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (holding initial unwarned admission does not automatically require suppression of subsequent Mirandized statement)
- State v. Farris, 109 Ohio St.3d 519 (Ohio 2006) (concluding physical evidence obtained as the direct result of un‑Mirandized custodial statements must be excluded under Ohio Constitution)
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard of review for motions to suppress: trial court factual findings afforded deference; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)