State v. LaRosa (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 4060

Background

On March 31, 2015, Jacob LaRosa (then 15) arrived home with blood on him; police found neighbor Marie Belcastro murdered and transported LaRosa to a hospital where he was handcuffed to a bed.
Hospital staff removed LaRosa’s socks and underwear for treatment and wiped his groin with a hospital washcloth; officers later obtained those items from hospital staff.
Detectives obtained a warrant authorizing buccal, penile, and hand swabs; hospital personnel also provided fingernail scrapings to police pursuant to that warrant.
LaRosa was indicted as an adult for aggravated murder and related offenses, moved to suppress the socks, underwear, washcloth, and fingernail scrapings; the trial court denied suppression; LaRosa pleaded no contest and was convicted and sentenced.
The Eleventh District affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted discretionary review on whether warrantless seizure of personal items from a hospital room and fingernail scrapings violated the Fourth Amendment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did taking the hospital washcloth violate the Fourth Amendment?	Washcloth contained LaRosa’s bodily fluids so he had a privacy interest; it should be suppressed.	Washcloth was hospital property; evidence from the penile swab would inevitably be discovered.	No violation: washcloth was hospital property and any evidence was subject to inevitable-discovery (Nix).
Did a warrant authorizing "hand swabs" permit fingernail scrapings?	Warrant did not specifically authorize fingernail scrapings; scraping exceeded warrant scope.	Fingernails are part of the hand; an officer can reasonably identify the place to be searched.	Held: "hand swab" includes fingernail scrapings; search authorized.
Were LaRosa’s socks and underwear seized by hospital staff or by police (i.e., was there governmental action)?	Items removed for treatment but police obtained them; LaRosa retained privacy/possessory interest.	No governmental action because hospital staff removed items; alternatively, no expectation of privacy.	Held: police seized items from the hospital room (governmental action); trial court erred in treating seizure as non-governmental.
If governmental action occurred, did an exception (e.g., plain view) justify warrantless seizure of socks and underwear?	Suppress—no valid exception.	State argues plain-view (but did not raise it below).	Held: State failed to raise plain-view below; court declined to consider it—seizure unsupported by claimed exceptions, so suppression should have been granted.
Was the trial court’s erroneous denial of suppression for socks/underwear harmless given LaRosa’s no-contest plea?	The denial affected LaRosa’s decision to plead; error not harmless—remand for further proceedings.	Error harmless because the socks/underwear were largely duplicative of other DNA and clothing evidence.	Majority: error harmless—seized items were cumulative of other lawful evidence; judgment affirmed. Dissent: disagreed, arguing harmless-error review was improper and remand required.

Key Cases Cited

Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498 (1925) (warrant description valid if officer can reasonably ascertain place to be searched)
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987) (particularity requirement prevents general exploratory searches)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable-discovery doctrine allows admission when the state shows evidence would have been discovered by lawful means)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (allocation of burden for harmless error and plain-error review)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (appellate review of suppression rulings: accept trial-court factual findings if supported; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
State v. Freeman, 64 Ohio St.2d 291 (1980) (test for abandonment of property for Fourth Amendment purposes)
Athens v. Wolf, 38 Ohio St.2d 237 (1974) (state bears burden by preponderance to show seized property was not illegally obtained)