2023 Ohio 3036
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In July 2021 officers ran the vehicle's plate and learned owner Donnie Dukes had outstanding drug-trafficking warrants; the car was parked in a cul-de-sac.
- Brittany Lewis exited the car carrying her purse and walked toward a nearby townhouse before officers approached the vehicle.
- Officers approached, smelled a strong odor of marijuana from the car, arrested Dukes, and searched the passenger compartment, finding drugs and a gun.
- Lewis returned and stood about 25 feet away; officers handcuffed her, removed her purse from her person, and searched it, finding pill bottles that led to fentanyl-related charges.
- The trial court denied Lewis’s motion to suppress; she was convicted. On appeal the court held the vehicle search lawful but concluded the warrantless search of Lewis’s purse was unconstitutional because the purse had been removed from the vehicle before probable cause to search the car arose, reversed the conviction, and discharged Lewis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of vehicle search under automobile exception | Vehicle search lawful because officers smelled marijuana and had probable cause to search the passenger compartment | Search violated Fourth Amendment; defendants argued exceptions did not apply | Held: Vehicle search constitutional—odor of marijuana provided probable cause to search car and containers inside compartment |
| Validity of purse search under automobile exception when purse was removed from vehicle before probable cause arose | State: Houghton/Mercier permit searching passenger containers; officer could have prevented purse removal | Lewis: purse was outside vehicle (≈25 ft) when probable cause developed, so automobile exception does not apply | Held: Purse search unconstitutional—automobile exception applies only to containers inside vehicle when probable cause arises; reversal and discharge |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (passenger belongings in car may be searched as part of vehicle search)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (scope of a vehicle search extends to containers that may conceal the object of the search)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) (mobility rationale for automobile searches)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable; exceptions narrowly drawn)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (2018) (automobile exception does not extend beyond the automobile itself)
- State v. Moore, 90 Ohio St.3d 47 (2000) (odor of marijuana can supply probable cause to search vehicle)
- State v. Vega, 154 Ohio St.3d 569 (2018) (odor-based probable cause to search vehicle affirmed)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (probable cause is assessed objectively)