2019 Ohio 3392
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On Aug. 27, 2018 Dayton police responded to a mental-health call for Michael Klase under R.C. 5122.10; officers determined he posed a risk and took him into custody for emergency hospitalization (a "pink slip").
- Officers removed Klase from a cot, escorted him cooperatively to a cruiser, and searched his person before transport, recovering marijuana, paraphernalia, and an unopened Altoids tin which they bagged.
- At the hospital Klase changed into hospital garments; officers turned his property over for hospital processing, then opened the Altoids tin and discovered methamphetamine.
- Klase was later indicted for aggravated possession of methamphetamine; he moved to suppress the meth found in the tin.
- The trial court granted suppression, holding (1) a custody-taking under R.C. 5122.10 is civil, not a criminal arrest, so search-incident-to-arrest doctrine did not apply; (2) officers lacked probable cause to arrest for aggravated menacing; and (3) the State failed to prove the search was a standardized inventory search.
- The court of appeals affirmed, allowing only a limited Terry-style pat-down for officer safety in emergency custody situations and rejecting a blanket search-incident-to-arrest or inventory justification absent standardized policy or exigency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of search when person taken into custody under R.C. 5122.10 | Search-incident-to-arrest analog applies to emergency custody; full search reasonable to remove dangerous items | Emergency hospitalization is civil, not arrest; search-incident-to-arrest does not apply | Civil custody under R.C. 5122.10 does not authorize full search incident to arrest; only limited pat-downs for safety are clearly permitted |
| Validity of opening closed container (Altoids tin) at hospital | Opening tin was reasonable for officer/hospital safety and evidence preservation; akin to search-incident or inventory | Opening closed container exceeded permissible safety search and violated privacy | Opening the Altoids tin at the hospital was unreasonable absent a demonstrated safety need or policy authorizing opening closed containers |
| Inventory-search exception | Inevitable discovery/inventory: items would have been found during hospital inventory; thus search lawful | No standardized police/hospital policy proved; officer’s testimony insufficient to establish routine authorized inventory of closed containers | Inventory exception did not apply because State failed to show existence and application of a standardized policy permitting opening closed containers |
| Good-faith exception to exclusionary rule | Officer acted in objectively reasonable good faith believing search lawful | Exclusion appropriate because the search was not objectively reasonable | Good-faith exception inapplicable; officer’s subjective good faith insufficient when search not objectively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (articulates community-caretaking function and limits on searches related to noncriminal police duties)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes limited weapons frisk during investigatory stops based on reasonable suspicion)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (defines limits of search incident to lawful arrest)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (permits full search of arrestee’s person incident to lawful arrest)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (reasonableness is the touchstone of Fourth Amendment searches)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits searches incident to arrest in vehicle context)
- Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983) (recognizes inventory-search exception to warrant requirement)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (upholds inventory searches conducted pursuant to standardized procedures)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule where officer reasonably relied on existing law)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (limits exclusionary rule to police conduct that is deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent)
- State v. Banks-Harvey, 152 Ohio St.3d 368 (2018) (discusses Ohio law on inventory searches and the requirement that property come into police custody)