State v. Levengood, 61 N.E.3d 766

On Dec. 20, 2014, police and EMS responded to a 911 call: an unresponsive man (Levengood) was found in his apartment and later determined to be suffering a heroin overdose.
Officer Clark entered the apartment under the medical-emergency (emergency-aid) exception and performed a ‘‘protective sweep’’ to check for other persons who might pose a danger or be injured.
During the sweep Clark entered the bedroom and observed a brown powder and needles; he seized the substance, which later tested positive for heroin.
Levengood was charged with possession of heroin; he moved to suppress the heroin as the product of an unlawful sweep.
The trial court granted the motion to suppress; the State appealed.
The appellate court affirmed, concluding the protective sweep of the bedroom was not supported by specific and articulable facts and therefore the plain-view seizure was invalid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a protective sweep of the apartment (including bedroom) was justified after entry under the medical-emergency exception	Protective sweep was reasonable to ensure officer/EMS safety and to check for others or injured persons	No articulable facts suggested anyone else was present or posed a danger; mere uncertainty is insufficient	Sweep was not justified; no specific and articulable facts supported belief others were present and dangerous
Whether the heroin seized in the bedroom is admissible under the plain-view doctrine	Seizure valid because officers lawfully entered under emergency-aid and plainly saw contraband	Because bedroom entry/sweep was unlawful, officers were not lawfully present to invoke plain-view	Seizure inadmissible; plain-view does not apply because presence in bedroom was not lawful

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (authorizes limited protective sweeps only on specific and articulable facts that area harbors persons who pose danger)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (establishes standard for stop-and-frisk and articulable-suspicion requirement)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable under Fourth Amendment)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1990) (plain-view doctrine conditions for lawful seizure)
Thacker v. City of Columbus, 328 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2003) (uncertainty in a medical-emergency can justify entry to secure scene)
State v. Dunn, 131 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 2012) (recognizes emergency-aid/community-caretaking exception under Ohio law)
State v. Lyons, 83 Ohio App.3d 525 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (protective sweep upheld where facts suggested other suspects/weapons remained on premises)