State v. Leak (Slip Opinion), 145 Ohio St. 3d 165

On Aug. 8, 2012, police executed an outstanding arrest warrant for Quayshaun Leak; he was a passenger in a lawfully parked car when an officer ordered him out and arrested him.
The arresting officer did not have a copy of the warrant, did not know details (time/place/level) of the domestic-violence charge, and did not know the car’s ownership for certain.
After confirming the driver had no warrants, the officer nevertheless had the vehicle towed based on his (unverified) belief that Leak owned it, then conducted an inventory search.
An officer found a handgun under the passenger seat; Leak admitted it was his.
Trial court denied Leak’s suppression motion; he pleaded no contest to weapons charges and appealed. The Fifth District affirmed; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted review.
The Ohio Supreme Court held the warrantless search unconstitutional and ordered suppression, concluding arrest of a recent occupant of a lawfully parked vehicle does not, by itself, justify impoundment and an inventory search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether search-incident-to-arrest justified vehicle search after Leak’s arrest	Leak: No — he was secured and not within reaching distance; no reasonable basis to believe vehicle contained evidence of domestic violence	State: Arrest of recent occupant of vehicle permits search under Gant if incident to arrest	Held: No — officer lacked facts tying car to the offense; Gant exception does not apply.
Whether community-caretaking/inventory exception justified impoundment/search	Leak: Impoundment unlawful because car was legally parked, driver could have driven away, no ordinance/statutory basis for towing; search pretextual	State: Search was a proper inventory incident to lawful impoundment and department procedure	Held: No — no statutory/ordinance basis or proved department policy for towing; officer’s testimony shows pretext for evidence-gathering, so inventory exception fails.
Whether good-faith exception saves the evidence	Leak: Exclusion required because search unreasonable	State: Officer followed routine procedure; suppression unnecessary under good-faith	Held: No — search was objectively unreasonable; admitting evidence would undermine Fourth Amendment protections so exclusion applies.

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (inventory searches reasonable for community-caretaking)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on vehicle search incident to arrest)
Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (police community-caretaking function regarding vehicles)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (inventory searches valid if pursuant to standard policy)
Blue Ash v. Kavanagh, 113 Ohio St.3d 67 (2007) (Ohio case upholding inventory search after lawful impoundment)
State v. Johnson, 141 Ohio St.3d 136 (2014) (good-faith exception and exclusionary-rule considerations)