State v. Lindow
2016 Ohio 913
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On December 15, 2013 Silver Lake police stopped David Lindow for driving with a suspended license; his pickup had a lockable toolbox in the bed.
- Officers decided the vehicle would be towed and performed an inventory search; Officer Oldham used a key provided by Lindow to unlock the toolbox.
- After unlocking the toolbox, officers discovered containers of marijuana (officers testified to about 166 grams total); a sample was chemically tested.
- Lindow was charged with trafficking in marijuana (with forfeiture), possession of marijuana, driving under suspension, and possession of drug paraphernalia; a jury convicted him of trafficking, possession, and driving under suspension (paraphernalia count dismissed).
- Lindow moved to suppress the evidence and statements from the inventory search; the trial court denied the motion by finding officers smelled marijuana coming from the locked toolbox before opening it, constituting probable cause.
- The Ninth District reversed the suppression ruling, holding the trial court’s factual finding (that the odor was detected before unlocking) was unsupported by competent, credible evidence; convictions for drug offenses were otherwise addressed on the merits (sufficiency upheld), but the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lindow) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless inventory search / probable cause to search locked toolbox | Officers smelled marijuana emanating from the locked toolbox, giving probable cause to open and search | Toolbox was opened during an inventory; officers only smelled marijuana after unlocking and opening it, so there was no pre-opening probable cause and the search was improper | Reversed suppression denial: trial court’s key factual finding (odor before unlocking) unsupported; suppression denial vacated and remanded |
| Inventory-search exception / departmental policy compliance | Inventory searches of impounded vehicles are permissible when not a pretext and within department policy | Search was pretextual/violated department policy (locked containers require warrant unless key available) | Court did not decide these arguments on appeal because resolution may differ after correct factual findings; remanded for further proceedings |
| Sufficiency of evidence for trafficking / possession | Chemical testing of a sample and packaging (multiple small containers) support inference entire bulk was marijuana and indicative of trafficking | State did not test all material; officers lacked significant trafficking-investigation experience; packaging alone insufficient | Convictions for trafficking and possession were supported by sufficient evidence (court affirmed those convictions on the merits) |
| Validity of driving-under-suspension charge | BMV record and Lindow’s own admissions at trial supported conviction | Lindow argued statutory inapplicability because suspension was for noncompliance | Driving-under-suspension conviction supported by sufficient evidence and not against manifest weight; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (2003) (standard of review for suppression: trial court factual findings given deference; appellate court reviews legal conclusions independently)
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (trial court as finder of fact on suppression hearings)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable except for established exceptions)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment search/seizure principles)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (warrantless inventory searches of impounded vehicles do not violate Fourth Amendment if not a pretext)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence on appeal)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest-weight review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (manifest-weight standard guidance)